The Paradox of Partial Parametricity
kosmo.zb at gmail.com
Thu May 23 02:41:15 PDT 2013
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> The point of my post was to demonstrate that fulfill/chain aka unit/bind could be built in user space *extremely simply*, thus allowing "the nascent monadic efforts in JS" to go off and do their own thing for a few years before asking to be baked into the platform.
JS is a compiler target. You are demanding that languages with
parametric polymorphism create extra garbage to map their semantics
onto your magic. You are demanding that authors who wish to create
parametric libraries jump through hoops and uglify their interfaces to
provide simple invariants.
> Promises, in the Q-plus-then-sense, have paid their dues.
Have they? Which languages have promises-in-the-Q-sense baked in?
> It's not very sporting for the monadic efforts to hijack the promise-standardization train, without first doing similar due diligence via real-world implementations and experience.
Haskell. OCaml. Any language with parametric polymorphism and static types.
Actual arguments are preferable over unsubstantiated assertions and
attempts at marginalization.
More information about the es-discuss