On 27.12.2009, at 23:03, Vagif Verdi wrote: > Except different types of monads do not compose, so you have to create > another artificial structure called monad transformers. And these new > structures introduce so much new artificial complexity that any > possible simplification becomes a moot point.
Please don't confuse the composition of computational steps in a monad with the composition of several monadic effects into a single combined monad. The first is quite well understood and I have yet to see anyone who has used monads in real life claim that they are not useful. The second aspect is more difficult and less well understood. The current most popular approach, monad transformers, may turn out to be insufficient or too complicated, and it may or may not be replaced by something else. Time will tell. The important point is that that utility of monads does not depend on monad transformers. > This fact is realized even in haskell community: > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2749#comment-41078 That article is about monad transformers, not monads themselves. BTW, monad transformers are simpler in Clojure than they are in Haskell (they are ordinary functions), so some arguments in that thread don't apply to the same degree. Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
