3 ms·

This is the first 'F# For Fun and Profit' article I've read, I was very impressed with how the author (Scott Wlaschin?) breaks the subject of monoids down so cl

This is the first 'F# For Fun and Profit' article I've read, I was very impressed with how the author (Scott Wlaschin?) breaks the subject of monoids down so clearly, something tells me that the author will be helping me out a lot in the coming months.

agumonkey 12y ago
I found Wlaschin work well balanced between accessible and complex. https://vimeo.com/97344498Vimeo https://vimeo.com/97344498Vimeo https://speakerdeck.com/swlaschin https://speakerdeck.com/swlaschin http://www.slideshare.net/ScottWlaschin http://www.slideshare.net/ScottWlaschin And wip book https://leanpub.com/understandingfunctionalprogramming https://leanpub.com/understandingfunctionalprogramming
gavinpc 12y ago
Monoid != Monad There seems to be some confusion about which one is confusing. The hardest part of understanding monoids is accepting that yes, that's all there is to it. The fuss is about the other one.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  Yes, I know that a monoid and a monad are two different terms, there's no confusion. However, despite monoids being relatively simple, my first introduction to monoids was this... http://gettingsharper.de/2015/03/03/understanding-monoids-using-f/ http://gettingsharper.de/2015/03/03/understanding-monoids-us... ... which I didn't find beginner friendly. YMMV.
  - gavinpc 12y ago
    But what is the use of understanding monoids, other than as a step towards understanding monads? No criticism... I read all of these submissions. But the ones which only cover monoids [0] leave me wondering, Okay, now what? So I guess the confusion is mine. [0] Other than to say that monads are "very different things".
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      > "But what is the use of understanding monoids, other than as a step towards understanding monads?" I'm sorry, but I don't follow. It's just terminology for communicating more efficiently with other programmers (and mathematicians, in this case). They're both a group of ideas with a label. Why would one group only serve to introduce the second group?
      - gavinpc 12y ago
        You're completely right — I stand corrected. The OP covers practical usages at the end of the piece, as well as in a follow-up piece for that sole purpose. Thanks.

agumonkey 12y ago

I found Wlaschin work well balanced between accessible and complex. https://vimeo.com/97344498Vimeo https://vimeo.com/97344498Vimeo https://speakerdeck.com/swlaschin https://speakerdeck.com/swlaschin http://www.slideshare.net/ScottWlaschin http://www.slideshare.net/ScottWlaschin And wip book https://leanpub.com/understandingfunctionalprogramming https://leanpub.com/understandingfunctionalprogramming

gavinpc 12y ago

Monoid != Monad There seems to be some confusion about which one is confusing. The hardest part of understanding monoids is accepting that yes, that's all there is to it. The fuss is about the other one.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
Yes, I know that a monoid and a monad are two different terms, there's no confusion. However, despite monoids being relatively simple, my first introduction to monoids was this... http://gettingsharper.de/2015/03/03/understanding-monoids-using-f/ http://gettingsharper.de/2015/03/03/understanding-monoids-us... ... which I didn't find beginner friendly. YMMV.
- gavinpc 12y ago
  But what is the use of understanding monoids, other than as a step towards understanding monads? No criticism... I read all of these submissions. But the ones which only cover monoids [0] leave me wondering, Okay, now what? So I guess the confusion is mine. [0] Other than to say that monads are "very different things".
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    > "But what is the use of understanding monoids, other than as a step towards understanding monads?" I'm sorry, but I don't follow. It's just terminology for communicating more efficiently with other programmers (and mathematicians, in this case). They're both a group of ideas with a label. Why would one group only serve to introduce the second group?
    - gavinpc 12y ago
      You're completely right — I stand corrected. The OP covers practical usages at the end of the piece, as well as in a follow-up piece for that sole purpose. Thanks.