[StumpyMge]

So I wrote the error monad up the other day as well as either's monad plus instance using success/failure instead of right/left.

Ok so if you don't know any haskell you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but bear with me. I wrote up a javascript library for fun and then a week later a colleague showed me machina.js which infuriated me due to the approach it suggests, but maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm nuts.

So looking for opinions from other experienced javascript folks if my approach is truly bonkers.

My library provides "then", "or", and "until" functions which chain as well as "success" and "failure" functions which are to be used for the return value in the functions you chain.

Go take a look at machina.js's first example over here (scroll down a touch you'll see it):
https://github.com/i...else/machina.js

Now look at how you would implement the identical behaviour using my library's functions which I mention above, and tell me which is clearer and if I'm nuts in my approach. Is my library actually useful considering machina.js is apparently seen as such (I did mine for fun presuming it useless to the community).

var isOnline = function(a) {
    var online = true;
    // checks window.navigator.online and more, sets the online value
    return online ? success(a) : failure(a);
};

var setOfflineTime = function(a) {
    a.offlineMarkerTime = new Date();
    return success(a);
};

var saveBatchToRemote = function(a) {
    return storage.saveBatchToRemote(a) : success(a) ? failure(a);
};

var saveToRemote = function(a) {
    return storage.saveToRemote(a) : success(a) ? failure(a);
};

var saveToLocal = function(a) {
    return storage.saveToLocal(a) : success(a) : failure(a);
};

var getFromLocal = function(a) {
    return success(storage.getFromLocal(a.offlineMarkerTime));
    // should have validation and failure but example didn't
};

var goOnline = getFromLocal.then(isOnline).then(saveBatchToRemote);
var goOffline = setOfflineTime.then(goOnline.or(saveToLocal));    
var machine = goOnline.or(goOffline);

var currentCustomer = machine(someCustomer).a; // how it might be run

Note, the last 3/4 lines are the key part where I'm actually composing the machine itself from it's component parts which is what I believe is preferable to the approach machina.js gives which isn't compositional.

[StumpyMge]

Oh and if you *do* know haskell, then you can understand: my "or" is either's mplus, "then" is kleisli composition of the error monad, and I guess "until" would be like msum I guess? Not super familiar with mplus so not certain of that.

[Dormilich]

StumpyMge, on 11 February 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

So looking for opinions from other experienced javascript folks if my approach is truly bonkers.

don’t worry about it. many people don’t even consider JS object oriented. but to use Functional Programming on JS, you must be nuts. *gg*

[StumpyMge]

Dormilich, on 11 February 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

don’t worry about it. many people don’t even consider JS object oriented. but to use Functional Programming on JS, you must be nuts. *gg*

I don't understand what you're saying here? To be clear, javascript is a functional language (meant to be a LISP with java syntax), not meant to be OO, per Brendan Eich (from: http://brendaneich.com/tag/history/ ):

Quote

As I’ve often said, and as others at Netscape can confirm, I was recruited to Netscape with the promise of “doing Scheme” in the browser.

[Dormilich]

StumpyMge, on 11 February 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

I don't understand what you're saying here?

sarcasm (denoted by the *gg*)

[StumpyMge]

I actually dreamed in code last night because of this stupid Machina.js code I was trying to refactor.. that lib encourages such bad habits, the resultant code is next to impossible to figure out, so figuring out what it's supposed to do so I can structure it into a reasonable composition is killing me.

People need to stop worrying and love the monad. I'm just saying.