Hacker News Reader

I don't think the semantics are any more imperative than IO in Haskell, it's just that there's a different abstraction used for dealing with it.

Moreover, Tasks are absolutely monadic, with `andThen` being the bind operator. Elm just chooses to focus on the individual use-case, as opposed to focusing on the broader abstraction.

View on HN

What does that mean? I'm not sure how you could get more imperative than IO in Haskell; that's literally how the language deals with effectful imperative sequencing.

Which abstraction does elm use? As far as I can see, there is no abstraction. This is the problem. Effectful code in elm looks syntactically just like pure code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com