As far-left militants, don't forget we love Soros and Gates. These are fine.

Oh no, Linus is certainly crying now

Have to admit these guys are doing well

Was their remit to republish public data and then cancel medical research and foreign aid? Then no, they are not doing well.

What metrics are you using to come to this conclusion?

The word is "unravelling", and as you don't know how to spell it I'd venture you know even less to point out all the corruption and money leakage that's been found. Or please, do try so we can have a laugh.

Are they rewriting federal bureaucracy in Rust?

I know you're being facetious but they literally deleted the Biden administration's recommendation to develop software using memory-safe languages.

They did? Interesting, do you have a link to this? Can't seem to find anything about it.

I was about to give a presentation on app sec trends and that memory safety guidance was part of it...

Ah, you know what, I misunderstood the situation: it got moved to an archived copy of the past version of whitehouse.gov: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1i7m431/whitehouse_pr...

Ok, thanks for letting me know :)

> The method names are more intuitive: e.g., then instead of map

But map makes total sense, considering that maybe is a monad.

Rather than monads, map is more likely to be familiar from sequences, and an optional is just a sequence with length < 2.

Well, monads get their map from functors, and they call it 'map' (or fmap) because of map on sequences.

I would expect different types of map and then:

    map :: (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b
    then :: (a -> Maybe b) -> Maybe a -> Maybe b

Although for Maybe these are not too different.

“then” is definitely less intuitive

Intuition is in the eye of the beholder

Well, it only needs to be a functor (in the Haskell sense) for map to make sense.

(Of course, all monads are also functors.)

True, but I would not be surprised if the vast majority of Java programmers have no clue what a monad is.

> no clue what a monad is.

which is a good opportunity to introduce said nomenclature, and ideas to them, rather than renaming said method to something more "palatable".

In my experience just name-dropping monads in non functional-programming oriented circles will get weird looks.

EDIT: I would even argue, as a fan of FP, that it's not immediately obvious how this terminology or concept even helps, from the point of view of a non purely functional programming language

Because the alternative to using one name is using more than one name. These days I'm pretty sure I'm using `select` to mean `map`.

You don’t need to mention monads, just imagine an Optional as a list with at most one element.