3 ms·

Edit 2: I'm sorry for getting a little inflammatory with my original comment. I have a headache today, and one of my biggest frustrations is needlessly poor com

Edit 2: I'm sorry for getting a little inflammatory with my original comment. I have a headache today, and one of my biggest frustrations is needlessly poor communication of concepts, especially if it's willful, and especially if it wastes the potential of capable people who could otherwise be given understanding. With that said I may have gone on a bit of a rant here and made some generalizations, and I don't feel good about that aspect, so I apologize.

kortex 5y ago
You remind me of when I started to actually get this stuff and it occurred to me that monads are just metadata+data with some special properties, and I posted about it on reddit and got downvoted to hell and told the many ways how that's wrong. The FP crowd...must be great at parties. I get this frustration. I think a big part of it is difference in definitions. There's the mathematician's monad, which is pure and abstract and obeys all these laws. And then there's the engineer's monad: an interface you can map, ap, and flatmap over. People get so hung up over "algebraic purity" they forget why they were invented/co-opted for software in the first place: to solve the problem of applying pure functions to side-effecty operations. > A monad is a wrapper. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being obtuse. https://rcrowley.org/2011/09/21/monads.html https://rcrowley.org/2011/09/21/monads.html