4 ms·
Would there be so many ineffective tutorials and bad analogies if having to use monads really wasn't a problem?
by c_crank 3y ago
Would there be so many ineffective tutorials and bad analogies if having to use monads really wasn't a problem?
- ParetoOptimal 3y agoSurely people never overcomplicate simple things, right? :)
- empath75 3y agoWeirdly once i stopped trying to understand what a monad was, i had no problem using them.
- chongli 3y agoThe problem with monads is that they’re a term from abstract algebra. Haskell’s documentation talks about them from that perspective (including monad laws), which makes them quite natural for anyone who’s studied some abstract algebra in university. Unfortunately, most programmers trying to learn Haskell have not taken any abstract algebra courses, so these definitions and laws are deemed insufficient. Regular people want to know the exact nature of a thing — not just a list of mathematical properties that hold — and so they insist that there must be something more. But there’s nothing there!
- grumpyprole 3y agoThis is FUD. You don't need to have studied abstract algebra to understand the monad laws. Basic high school maths is more then sufficient. EDIT: Apologies, I missed the subtle point this post was making!
- tome 3y ago> This is FUD I think chongli is actually in agreement with you
- klodolph 3y agoThe reason that there are so many tutorials and analogies is because monads are relatively easy to understand, but unfamiliar, and they allow you to do a bunch of math (which you don’t have to do). Not hard enough to cause Haskell programmers any problems.