oh ok. Any thoughts on why scala conferences have this "Describable, typesafe computations for the less monadically inclined" but python conferences don't ?
Because doing something like that without a type system (which Python doesn't have) to guide your hand is practically impossible.
I would expect Clojure programmers (while still functional) don't use these abstractions either.
On the other hand, typed languages, like Haskell, Scala, OCaml, F#, do employ these abstract concepts. Their type system makes these worthwhile endeavour with great payoff.
Oh I was asking if they( monoids, monads ect) are everywhere like GP claimed then how come monads isn't something that talked about in clojure or python conferences. But its always talked about in scala conferences.
Well, maybe scala conferences are hosted and attended by people who are interested in those concepts and find them attractive to talk about ? "conference people" just develop their own meta over time
Also, I just clicked on the most recent conference on
clojure.org : https://clojured.de/schedule/ , and there is a talk mentioning monads while promising to not talk about monads :-D So it kind of reinforce my point that basic theoretical concepts are silently everywhere ^^ (and fully not necessary for almost everything).
But I don't think conferences are representative of the "on the ground production experience" that you have, or at least can have.
I personnaly wouldn't submit a paper to a conference with a talk "Here's how I made a whole backend stack using boring scala, and it just works" because as you say, I feel it's just full of theoretical speakers and that wouldn't interest anyone.
Meanwhile, I also did code a whole backend in boring scala, and it in fact just works, and it feels good :-)
Oh I was asking if they( monoids, monads ect) are everywhere like GP claimed then how come monads isn't something that talked about in clojure or python conferences.
