Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The entire point of GATs was to carve out a design space that solved peoples' problems without being so high-minded as monads and HKT and so on. High-minded or snobbish or whatever other deragotory words that one wants to use: the benefit of something like HKT is that it encompasses one thing that Rust now currently ends up catching up to by implementing dozens of “X with Y” (“generic const in associated lifetimes…
> Meanwhile a Haskell programmer might go years and never think about HKT as a feature. It’s just “kinds” without artificial-looking limitations. And yet, at the same time, Haskell has many, many extensions to enable certain features that would come for free in a dependently typed language, for example. I find Idris's type system easier to fit in my head, for example. There's always a next level of generality in whic…
For sure.
In Rust’s case though it seemed that insiders were saying that HKT was more than the language needed, while now they keep running into limitations which necessitates patching up feature limitations. And patching up the language itself, not compiler extensions (maybe rustc is the only compiler that people use (?) but the updates are really to the language (in the abstract) itself).
But in any case, I’ve been told that I’m just talking out of my behind ;)