They are, emotionally, just a way of concealing the fact that Haskell programs contain code that has state, has side effects and is procedural.I'd reword that a little differently. The type system loudly proclaims to everyone that these particular functions are contaminated by state and side effects, so by-golly you'd better don the bio-hazard suit and procede with caution.
it could be coded in a normal, procedural style with loops and state and side-effects; and without all that faffing around that monads introduce.I think there's probably a large subjective element in choosing a favorite programming. Some people like cats, others like dogs. When I first encountered Haskell, my initial reaction was, "Yes! This is how programming was intended to be done". I no longer needed to faff (?) around with side effects willy-nilly everywhere.No need to (badly) re-invent all the standard procedural constructs--like try/catch et al.
It sounds like you've had the opposite reaction. No harm, no foul. If you don't like broccoli, there is no sense in feeling bad just because others rave about it. And anyone who nags you about the health benefits of broccoli is a bore.
Haskell programmers truly think it is a better way to program. No apologies. (Heck, maybe we're just crazy). And some of us think that Haskell doesn't even go far enough.
In reply to Re^4: Is it worth using Monads in Perl ? and what the Monads are ?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Is it worth using Monads in Perl ? and what the Monads are ?
by rootcho
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |