Comments for Sadek Drobi's Blog

Comment on A monad in C# for simplifying WPF multi-threading for a more responsive GUI by Jacob Stanley

Jacob Stanley — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:56:20 +0000

@Fabrice – The variable names are not as important as the types in this case. In my opinion, adding more verbose variable names makes this harder to understand. If you really want to know how it works you need to study monads in general.

Wes Dyer wrote a good article on this topic for C# programmers: http://blogs.msdn.com/wesdyer/archive/2008/01/11/the-marvels-of-monads.aspx

Comment on A monad in C# for simplifying WPF multi-threading for a more responsive GUI by Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:48:51 +0000

Im curious how this is distinct from Eric Meijer’s Rx or First Class Events in F# (ie, Functional Reactive Programming)

Comment on A monad in C# for simplifying WPF multi-threading for a more responsive GUI by Sadache

Sadache — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:01:36 +0000

I agree that implementation code is not explicit for non FPs. But you do not need to understand the implementation to use the monad. Same thing as for Linq for lists. Did you go through their implementation before using them? The wide majority don’t care…

Comment on A monad in C# for simplifying WPF multi-threading for a more responsive GUI by Fabrice

Fabrice — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:44:58 +0000

“code here is simplified for clarity”
Not so sure about that.

I don’t really understand what your code does, but when I see code like the this, I just want to run away:

View SelectMany(this View m, Func k) { return () => k(m())(); }

What do U, T, m, and k mean?
If you want someone to use your code, you’d better use explicit names.

Comment on DCI in Real World: Domain Context and Interaction with Scala in a Real World Project by Aaron Harnly

Aaron Harnly — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:04:37 +0000

Very interesting. Practically begs for some implicit conversions, no? Or would that ruin the sensation of explicitly invoking a role?

Comment on Who told Java Checked Exceptions were a Bad Idea? by alec

alec — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:25:50 +0000

At first, i thought this blog was dated 2003 or so… Here’s a good article that, i find, explains quite a bit, including the popular misconceptions about exceptions. What the article does very well is explain why you don’t need a compiler alert to have no surprises.

http://constv.blogspot.com/2009/08/error-handling-and-exceptions-in-java.html

Cheers,
Alec

Comment on Who told Java Checked Exceptions were a Bad Idea? by Casper Bang

Casper Bang — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:17:16 +0000

The problem is not checked exceptions as a concept, as they obviously represents a boost to static checking at the expense of leaking abstraction (you will want to guard layer boundaries). No the problem is how they are implemented in Java. 1) You can not rethrow, only wrap 2) The hierachy is screwed, you can’t choose to only catch CheckedException while letting UncheckedExceptions bubble up 3) The Java libraries are horrible guidelines at how you should use checked exceptions.

Comment on A monad in C# for simplifying WPF multi-threading for a more responsive GUI by Jacob Stanley

Jacob Stanley — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:01:03 +0000

@Jonathan It’s adorable that you think the LINQ syntax is only for querying collections :) It was deliberately implemented in a way that isn’t tied to the list monad (IEnumerable) so that developers can use it in other useful ways.

Comment on Why Haskell Matters -> Abstraction :: Multi Inheritance, Interfaces, Extension Methods and Type Classes by Matthias

Matthias — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:11:16 +0000

Dylan can be statically typed and supports a CLOS-style object-system. Moreover you can get similar behaviour to type classes by inheriting from abstract classes.

Comment on DCI in Real World: Domain Context and Interaction with Scala in a Real World Project by Chris Leong

Chris Leong — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:45:26 +0000

Very interesting article. Would it be possible for you to post the complete code or whatever code is available? Thanks.