This is awesome! I love Haskell's syntax, but its adoption isn't where I'd like it to be.
One thing that I don't see is a way to mitigate the "andThen" pyramid of doom.
This happens when you have a language without early returns and you have chain multiple Result returning operations. You can use nested case expressions:
case operation1 x of
Ok value -> case operation2 value of
Ok value2 -> value2
Err msg -> "error from operation2: " ++ msg
Err msg -> "error from operation1: " ++ msg
Or nested `andThen` calls
operation1 x
>> mapError (\msg -> "error from operation1: " ++ msg)
>> `andThen` (\value -> operation2 value)
>> mapError (\msg -> "error from operation2: ++ msg)
This is nicer to read, but still a lot of noise.
Haskell has `do` notation to alleviate this but that brings with it the type-class that shall not be named.
Some languages, like Rust, introduce different per-type syntactical solutions such as `async/await` for Promises and `?` for Result.
I particularly like Gleam's `use` notation, which is syntactical sugar around functions that take a callback as their final argument.
Real names didn't stop people from being arseholes on Facebook. They did lose a lot of friends, but they also found like minded friends, so kind of a wash.
One thing that I don't see is a way to mitigate the "andThen" pyramid of doom.
This happens when you have a language without early returns and you have chain multiple Result returning operations. You can use nested case expressions:
Or nested `andThen` calls This is nicer to read, but still a lot of noise.Haskell has `do` notation to alleviate this but that brings with it the type-class that shall not be named.
Some languages, like Rust, introduce different per-type syntactical solutions such as `async/await` for Promises and `?` for Result.
I particularly like Gleam's `use` notation, which is syntactical sugar around functions that take a callback as their final argument.
Do you have a solution for this in Sky?
reply