I tried to like this series. I really did. And it starts out so strong... The thing is, you can't escape talking about the specific implementation details of m

I tried to like this series. I really did. And it starts out so strong... The thing is, you can't escape talking about the specific implementation details of monads while talking about monads, otherwise you lose the plot of what we're doing and why. Saying, "Monads are just code patterns" is like saying, "All matter in the universe is just energy patterns," strictly correct but unhelpful for any true insight. Its okay to skip the monad laws at first, but what's not okay is to talk about why there are so many Monads or what actually constitutes a monad. The best writing I've ever seen on this subject is from Learn You A Haskell for Great Good, where they walk you through a piece of code and then show how using a monad makes it cleaner and less tedious. By the end of those 2 chapters from LYAH, you end up with the sense that monads are obvious and natural. And they are once you understand the sorts of problems they solve. I wish we had more of that.