Thanks for this link. It seems to confirm things: "aren’t Conduits and Transducers then equivalent (isomorphic)? I am pretty sure they are."
I view this as a good sign. When two independent parties arrive at the same design it is usually an indication that they have discovered a universal and principled solution.
I consider the "conduit" library to be one of Haskell's "killer features", and sorely miss having something like it when working in other languages.
Maybe when Haskellers dismiss clojure transducers as being "just like conduit" it comes from a place of jealousy? I've seen several articles and discussions over the years of clojure transducers that take place outside of clojure communities and are aimed at the wider programming public, praising the benefits of it. But I've never seen conduit discussed outside of Haskell communities.
I view this as a good sign. When two independent parties arrive at the same design it is usually an indication that they have discovered a universal and principled solution.
I consider the "conduit" library to be one of Haskell's "killer features", and sorely miss having something like it when working in other languages.
Maybe when Haskellers dismiss clojure transducers as being "just like conduit" it comes from a place of jealousy? I've seen several articles and discussions over the years of clojure transducers that take place outside of clojure communities and are aimed at the wider programming public, praising the benefits of it. But I've never seen conduit discussed outside of Haskell communities.