Burning bridges

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Casey McCann <cam at uptoisomorphism.net> writes:

> Beyond that, the argument that having redundant, less-polymorphic versions
> of standard combinators is helping beginners has not become any less
> ridiculous since the first time I heard it.

As I sit here in agreement with Edward, and comments like Casey's above, I
begin to wonder: does the assumed minority who opposes such changes even exist
anymore?  Is there a chance we've fallen into the trap of assuming that they
exist, and so shying away from formally proposing changes like this one?

For example, in personal discussions, on IRC, and on the mailing lists, I see
a resounding consensus that Applicative should become a superclass of Monad --
and that we can fix the breakages that will result.  I also see consensus
towards a less monomorphic Prelude (which dovetails nicely with the
aforementioned Applicative change, as Edward explained).

Why should the few (if they are even still out there!) who do not want such
changes be allowed to rule the day?  Why do I hear so many voices raised up in
agreement, and then silenced by comparatively little opposition?

If "avoiding success at all costs" is jokingly our by-word, are not backwards
incompatible changes in the name of seeking perfection one of the best ways to
forestall success? :)

-- 
John Wiegley
FP Complete                         Haskell tools, training and consulting
http://fpcomplete.com               johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net