alt Hacker NewsI don't get why people keep thinking it was forgotten; I will just charitably assume that people saying this just don't have much background on the Go programming language. The reason why is because implementing that in any reasonable fashion would require massive changes to the language. For example, you can't build Either/Maybe in Go (well, of course you can with some hackiness, but it won't really achieve the same thing) in the first place, and I doubt hacking it in as a magic type that does stuff that can't be done elsewhere is something the Go developers would want to do (any more than they already have to, anyway.)
Am I missing something? Is this really a good idea for a language that can't express monads naturally?
> I don't get why people keep thinking it was forgotten
Well, I replied to a post that gave a link to a document that supposedly exhaustively (?) listed all alternatives that were considered. Monads are not on that list. From that, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it was not considered, aka forgotten.
If it was not forgotten, then why is it not on the list?
> Is this really a good idea for a language that can't express monads naturally?
That's a separate question from asking why people think that it wasn't considered. An interesting one though. To an experienced Haskell programmer, it would be worth asking why not take the leap and make it easy to express monads naturally. Solving the error handling case elegantly would just be one side effect that you get out of it. There are many other benefits, but I don't want to make this into a Haskell tutorial.