[Miky]

My issue is not with Roy. It's absolutely fantastic to have a functional language that compiles to JavaScript.

My issue is with the use of monads in particular, and I think my comment pretty well communicates that it's solely about that. I don't think it conveys a false impression about Roy as a whole at all.

Your statement that my comment "can at best be seen as attention-seeking behavior and at worst as an underhanded FUD tactic to turn people off the project" is just absolutely ridiculous. I have nothing against the project Roy, and I wish it nothing but success. Why would I possibly have any motivation to use underhanded FUD tactics to turn people off the project? And I don't even know what to say to your accusation of attention-seeking behavior. In what world is initiating a productive discussion about an important issue, and not in a self-promoting way at all, "attention-seeking behavior"? Get off your high horse.

[zohebv]

> In what world is initiating a productive discussion about an important issue

A toy example is not an important issue. As for initiating productive discussions, I will let your comments speak for themselves

1. This is cargo cult programming at its worst

2. What drove you to unleash this horror on the programming masses, Moggi?

3. Why have you cursed us so?

4. It makes me sad that having monad sugar ....

5. .... stripped of all utility and sense.

[Miky]

The toy example is a microcosm of the important issue. The important issue is the use of monads in functional programming.

How is a discussion not productive just because it's not framed in the most formal language possible?