4 ms·
I think the fact that two people suggesting this idea chose two completely different names to replace "Monad" demonstrate pretty well why trying to use an "intu
by aninhumer 13y ago
I think the fact that two people suggesting this idea chose two completely different names to replace "Monad" demonstrate pretty well why trying to use an "intuitive" name is a bad idea.
I can just about get behind "Mappable" for Functor, but there simply isn't a unifying notion that explains what a Monad is in one word. Some Monads are better described by their join, and others are better described by their bind. You call IO a "freakish outlier", but Reader, Writer and State all follow a similar notion of sequence.
- joe_the_user 13y agoI think the fact that two people suggesting this idea chose two completely different names to replace "Monad" demonstrate pretty well why trying to use an "intuitive" name is a bad idea. Uh so, Because when you have a complex idea which can be approached multiple ways, the best way to help people approach it is ... no way at all, no helping hands or training wheels. See my other complaints about "we don't want to let you be any bit OK until you have it all".
- aninhumer 13y agoI'm not saying we can't use these words to help people understand, just that we shouldn't rename core elements of the language just for the benefit of beginners. Especially if the new names don't fit with half of their common use cases. Learning a new word is not what makes Monads hard.