Monads are actually a very simple concept. They're really hard to understand at first because of how much knowledge is prerequisite. I found that by teaching my

Monads are actually a very simple concept. They're really hard to understand at first because of how much knowledge is prerequisite. I found that by teaching myself Haskell incrementally, in small steps, I was able to understand monads just as easily as anything else. For me, it was simply resolving the following dependency graph: Algebraic data types -> type classes -> functors -> applicative functors -> monoids -> monads. I need to emphasise that understanding of each stage is predicated on understanding of the previous stage. Trying to learn monads without understanding these other concepts is like trying to learn Maxwell's equations without an understanding of calculus and physics. Lippert states: "Plenty of developers have used the monad pattern entirely by accident, not realizing that they're re-inventing something that already has a name.". This is completely true. For instance, watch this video on refactoring by Ben Orenstein [1]. He 'destroy[s] conditionals with a NullObject'. This is exactly how the maybe monad works. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC-pQPq0acs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC-pQPq0acs