Python-based monads essay (Re: Assignment versus binding)

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:31:36 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Gregory Ewing :
> 
> > Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >> This suggests even the promoters of functional programming
> >> intuitively prefer imperative programming, but that's ok as long as
> >> it's all functional under the hood.
> >
> > You make it sound like functional programmers like functional
> > programming because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. I don't think
> > that's true -- there are specific reasons they like it, and those
> > reason still apply when I/O is expressed using a monadic structure.
> >
> > Read Part 2 - I have something to say about that at the end.
> 
> I've read it. This looks awfully imperative to me:

<analogy>
You are an assembly language programmer.
You've mastered interrupts, instruction formats, IO nitty gritties,
protection modes and all the other good stuff

Up comes this ‘structured programming' kid believing his new religion will save
the world.
You ask him about all the stuff youve spent your life on
1st answer: none of thats available
You scratch your head: So the kewlest paradigm is the poweroff button
2nd answer: Well if you must have all that there's
- separate compilation
- inline assembly
- intrinsics
- etc
- etc

You: (scratching the head harder): Every solution you are giving me makes my 
life worse.
You want to qualify as sadist? Be by guest!
Programmers messiah? Not mine. Thank you!
</analogy>

FP is not much more than structured programming carried to its logical limit:
http://blog.languager.org/2012/11/imperative-programming-lessons-not.html