4 ms·
I like reading the comments on monad descriptions looking for all the ones that declare the wrongness with this one but either offer no further clarification, o
by bane 2y ago
I like reading the comments on monad descriptions looking for all the ones that declare the wrongness with this one but either offer no further clarification, or offer a similarly useless and confusing description...then I look for the comments under those.
They become like beautiful fractal trees with branches upon branches of people giving alternate examples and then comments refuting those.
I'm pretty sure at this point this sort of meta-in-joke art form is what a monad is.
It's almost as good as the old "time to crate" way of measuring first person shooters.
- bazoom42 2y agoGood observation - this happens on every thread mentioning monads. The issue is, monads is a pattern for function composition which can be used for various seemingly unrelated things. But people see one instance of it and then generalize wrongly. E.g. lists and option-types are monads so some generalize them as “wrappers around types” - except this doesnt describe the IO monad at all. Or some see the IO and State monad and generalize monads as about managing side-effects - except this does not describe list or option types.