> It is impossible to ensure that a monad within Haskell conforms to the monadic axioms (in other words, it is impossible to ensure a monad within Haskell is ac

> It is impossible to ensure that a monad within Haskell conforms to the monadic axioms (in other words, it is impossible to ensure a monad within Haskell is actually a monad). It is impossible to ensure almost anything in any programming language without dependent types or an external prover. Sometimes, programmers name things as they ought to be, not as they are guaranteed by the compiler to be. See, for instance, Hungarian notation. > Haskell’s relationship to category theory, which has been so thoroughly emphasized, has had a profound effect on the majority of the community. This is not my experience with the Haskell community. I have been writing Haskell for 7 years. > I have personally spoken with countless Haskell programmers who, either implicitly or explicitly, assert they are expert users of the language. I do not think "assert" and "implictly" go along very well together. > As a result, the community becomes inundated with programmers who make a sort of claim to understand Haskell (and, erroneously, therefore category theory). It is not my experience that the Haskell community is inundated with programmers who make a sort of claim to understand category theory. I do think the Haskell community is inundated with people who sort of claim to understand Haskell, but that seems like the definition of a PL community. > All I ask now is that you all don’t get your panties in a bundle again over this post If one uses inflammatory language like "pervert", "flagrant disregard for mathematical correctness", "I take severe offense", one should expect an equally inflammatory response.