5 ms·
Finally someone has the courage to tell the Truth about CT. Next up: the idea that the notions of Monad, Functor, and Category (in whatever guise) are even ne
by bonemachine 13y ago
Finally someone has the courage to tell the Truth about CT.
Next up: the idea that the notions of Monad, Functor, and Category (in whatever guise) are even needed or helpful to do strong FP.
- cnlwsu 13y agoI was able to be fairly effective (imho) in clojure/scala without knowing anything about fuzzyWuzzies, bananas, and cheerios. I felt learning about them becomes interesting though as you dig into the language more. Mostly as a curiosity thing... spend some time to "finally learn about monads" to see you've been using them the entire time.
- tjr 13y agoI like how he wrote a post a few days later, Learn You Some Category Theory: http://jozefg.bitbucket.org/posts/2013-10-22-category-theory-in-haskell.html http://jozefg.bitbucket.org/posts/2013-10-22-category-theory...
- freyrs3 13y agoAre they needed? No. Are they useful abstractions? Yes. Like most abstractions in Haskell the theory is always optional.
- nbouscal 13y agoStrictly speaking very little is needed. You can write everything in assembly if you'd like. Helpful, though? There's absolutely no question. Type classes like those you mentioned make programs more concise, more understandable* , and more general. All of those are good things. * Specifically, understandable to people who know the language and concepts. Trying to be understandable to everyone is a terrible idea. For example, Cucumber.
- dllthomas 13y agoI regularly miss Monad as an abstraction in my C code and Functor in my C#. They're just plain helpful, FP or not. Needed? Probably not, though a case could be made that monad is sufficiently helpful to deserve that title for dealing with sanely ordering IO in a lazy language.