4 ms·

The article is literally: "Hell thing" Step 1 -> monads step 2 -> ???? step 3 -> profit? This is apparently the monads curse where people that get them can't

The article is literally: "Hell thing" Step 1 -> monads step 2 -> ???? step 3 -> profit? This is apparently the monads curse where people that get them can't effing explain them to save their life.

strbean 6y ago
Monads are just monoids in the category of endofunctors! /s The issue is pretty much a language barrier. All these articles talking about benefits of / interesting ways to use monads are written by people who speak the language, assuming the reader speaks the language as well. As with many functional programming topics, the fundamentals aren't incredibly easy to wrap your head around. But if you already understood monads, can you imagine how annoying it would be if every resource, discussion, article, etc. relating to them started with a pages-long introduction on What is a Monad? In Haskell, this is a fundamental topic. Monads are used everywhere. If people always explained how they worked when discussing them, it would be like looking up sorting algorithms and having every algorithm description start with a long-winded explanation of how for loops work.
- infogulch 6y ago
  > But if you already understood monads, can you imagine how annoying it would be if every resource, discussion, article, etc. relating to them started with a pages-long introduction on What is a Monad? I agree that it would be unreasonable for every article that uses monads to describe what they are. But I don't think it would be unreasonable for every one of them to link to another article that does explain them.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    Would you say the same about for loops? Depending on your audience, it's totally reasonable to expect they know certain things. Further, figuring out what to recommend isn't always easy, and I'd usually rather authors put their efforts into presenting the material that they have to share.

The article is literally: "Hell thing" Step 1 -> monads step 2 -> ???? step 3 -> profit? This is apparently the monads curse where people that get them can't effing explain them to save their life.

strbean 6y ago

Monads are just monoids in the category of endofunctors! /s The issue is pretty much a language barrier. All these articles talking about benefits of / interesting ways to use monads are written by people who speak the language, assuming the reader speaks the language as well. As with many functional programming topics, the fundamentals aren't incredibly easy to wrap your head around. But if you already understood monads, can you imagine how annoying it would be if every resource, discussion, article, etc. relating to them started with a pages-long introduction on What is a Monad? In Haskell, this is a fundamental topic. Monads are used everywhere. If people always explained how they worked when discussing them, it would be like looking up sorting algorithms and having every algorithm description start with a long-winded explanation of how for loops work.

infogulch 6y ago
> But if you already understood monads, can you imagine how annoying it would be if every resource, discussion, article, etc. relating to them started with a pages-long introduction on What is a Monad? I agree that it would be unreasonable for every article that uses monads to describe what they are. But I don't think it would be unreasonable for every one of them to link to another article that does explain them.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  Would you say the same about for loops? Depending on your audience, it's totally reasonable to expect they know certain things. Further, figuring out what to recommend isn't always easy, and I'd usually rather authors put their efforts into presenting the material that they have to share.