4 ms·

> Philosophically, Smalltalk's objects have much in common with the monads of Leibniz and the notions of 20th century physics and biology Love this line as thi

> Philosophically, Smalltalk's objects have much in common with the monads of Leibniz and the notions of 20th century physics and biology Love this line as this was definitely my impression of monads when venturing into Haskell-land... The whole history of Smalltalk is interesting and it's an interesting way to reason about data and behaviour. And even if Smalltalk is obscure, C++, Java, Ruby, Python and others aren't, and OOP remains a great way to model many domains.

chillpenguin 5y ago
I could be wrong because I don't know much about Leibniz's monads, but aren't those a completely different thing from Haskell monads? I don't just mean "slightly different" like how arrays in javascript are slightly different than arrays in C. I mean like they are completely different ideas/concepts that happen to share the same word. I think "Homonym" is the right word for this situation?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 5y ago
>Love this line as this was definitely my impression of monads when venturing into Haskell-land Despite the name though, Leibniz monad's don't have anything to do with monads in category theory/math and Haskell. In Leibniz the name monads is used for a philosophical concept, kinda like a blend of "atoms" in Democritus and platonic "ideas" ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology")
- spindle 5y ago
  Specifically, Leibniz's monads couldn't have any communication of any kind with anything (including each other or themselves), so they are not really a great model of anything in computer science!