To understand monads one must first understand monads. I'm not even saying that a bit sarcastically. I've read countless "tutorials" and even tried messing aro

To understand monads one must first understand monads. I'm not even saying that a bit sarcastically. I've read countless "tutorials" and even tried messing around with Haskell in an attempt to grok monads. According to the link shared by GP comment, my understanding is still completely wrong. There is a reason there is a joke about it. "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the probleⅿ?" - James Iry, taken from [0] [0] http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-m...