Re:Why I am learning category theory
by shakow on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @08:58PM
(#33811271)
Looks like to the hard part is ‶handl[ing] all the locking and concurrency″ with a pretty interface; that it satisfies the definition of a monad is a convenience because the `do` keyword requires it, but so would it be if it satisfied any other one, wouldn't it?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I would say it's the other way around:
1. Because the underlying concept for handling composing locks (STM, which I don't know much about, but I'm going to assume is a way to wrap operations within a transaction) is sound
2. it is easy to define the corresponding monad
3. which makes it usable in a do notation
4. producing readable and future-proof code
The step 2 is almost trivial, 1 is where the thinking is at. The do notation is nice to have, but not that important (to me at least). I have no problem writing this in CPS style when using javascript or c++:
const transfer = (x, from, to, onSuccess, onError) => {
return getAccountMoney(from, (f) => {
if (f < x) {
return onError();
} else {
return getAccountMoney(to, (t) => {
return setAccountMoney(to, t+x, () => {
return setAccountMoney(from, f-x, onSuccess, onError);
}, onError);
}, onError);
}, onError);
}
}