Re: [Caml-list] Re: variance, subtyping and monads... oh, my!

[james woodyatt <jhwoodyatt@mac.com>]

On Monday, November 19, 2001, at 01:58 , Markus Mottl wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, james woodyatt wrote:
>>
>> If by using monads, on the other hand, I can do something easily that
>> would otherwise be very awkward, then I'm sold.  So far, I have only
>> found examples of how to do things I can already do better with the
>> imperative and object-oriented styles in OCaml.
>
> Objects are useful abstractions for states, whereas monads are
> abstractions of computations (i.e. state transformations, like e.g.
> rewriting steps as above). These two things solve different problems so
> it wouldn't make much sense saying that one is "better" than the other.

That's probably what I needed to hear.  Thanks very much for the advice.

I'll take a look at that FFTW library for more clues about using the 
monadic style.  I hope to discover that I can use monads to address a 
particularly thorny class of problems that seems to arise again and 
again in my work, and which seems not to be well addressed by objects 
alone: cross-cutting concerns in the implementation of network 
application protocols.


--
j h woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com>
"...the antidote to misinformation is more information, not less."
                                                      --vinton cerf

-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr