No. Screw quantifiability. I don't want "we've improved the sota by 1.931%" on basically anything that matters. Show me improvements that are obvious, improvements that stand out.

Claude Plays Pokemon is one of the few really important "benchmarks". No numbers, just the progress and the mood.

TLAs aren't my forte. It's SoA of course.

Yes and no.

No, the language doesn't have a special construct. Yes, there are all kinds of mutable values for different usage patterns and restrictions.

Most likely you end up with mutable containers with some space reserved for entity state.

You can start with putting `IORef EntityState` as a field and let the `update` write there. Or multiple fields for state sub-parts that mutate at different rates. The next step is putting all entity state into big blobs of data and let entities keep an index to their stuff inside that big blob. If your entities are a mishmash of data, then there's `apecs`, ECS library that will do it in AoS way. It even can do concurrent updates in STM if you need that.

Going further, there's `massiv` library with integrated task supervisor and `repa`/`accelerate` that can produce even faster kernels. Finally, you can have your happy Haskell glue code and offload all the difficult work to GPU with `vulkan` compute.

I'll take it.

> ChatGPT is the new techno-atheist's substitute for God

Not really, no ~~true~~ AInotKillingeveryoneIst says that ChatGPT (or GPT-like) is ASI. Please stop beating this particular strawman.

The standard didn't come out because of some failure to make it. It was mostly the lack of interest that killed it. I wouldn't be betting that some alternative universe where Haskell Prime pulled through had a noticeable increase of adoption because of this.

Looking at proposals, arguments "from standard" don't tend to generate enough support. What wins hearts is alleviating someone's pain without taking disproportionate externalities.

Knowing some prehistory about doesn't affect usage. And metaphors are very tricky and personal.

The personal part is where the "monad tutorials" fall flat. They assume shared context which may or not may not be actually shared by a random reader on the internet. Yes, some monads are really about "wrapping a value" or whatever.

Reading a post using this metaphor when you want such a wrapping and/or deal with chaining wrappers regularly can bootstrap your understanding in no time. But if you're reading "wrapper"-flavored tutorial while dealing with "pipes" then the spell breaks, you end up confused, and another one joins the "monads are uncomprehensible" group.

Teaching is hard enough. Writing good tutorials is even harder. Successfully giving an universally good drive-by explanation is next to zero probability.

I suspect this is a knowledge variant of "XY problem" and you have to establish more context before answering.

And another problem that "what is a monad" is already a meme. Everyone has the burning desire to ask it, but usually there's no practical need for the answer. Without that confusion ensues. Or, even worse, a false understanding gets locked in and starts to proliferate, sustaining the memetic chain reaction.

In Haskell, a Monad is a type class with a method `bind`. In Scala that would be a `flatten` or whatever.

If a person who's asking doesn't yet know what the "type class" is, or how to read signatures, your "monad tutorial" would not make much sense anywat. Guide them to learn the prerequisites first.

E.g. even if "getting your face hit by a brick, hourly" is a more widely demanded skill and has more job openings than Haskell I'd still pick the latter.