People who have trouble understanding monads usually don't have any problem with callbacks. Because the computational context "some as usual, except in the near future" is familiar to them.
-
-
I’ve see plenty of javascript and the example makes sense. Background is a good bit of cs and software, mostly dynamic languages but some flow/typescript and typed languages here and there
-
Great. But using >>= in Haskell is still more mysterious than using .then in JS, or what do you feel unsure about?
-
What I don't get is which part the word monad refers to
-
Maybe it is difficult to see it as a thing because it is more like a design pattern, except fully incarnated (into a type constructer, two generic functions and three laws). The monad design pattern is about sequencing computations that exist in some computational context.
-
Probably need to meditate on that a bit. What would definitions of return and >>= look like for a js Promise? Is ‘then’ ‘>>=‘?
-
Yes. For return: return = x => Promise.resolve(x);
-
Okay, I think I’m starting to see it. Continuation is definitely easier to see than Maybe or List. List in js is effectively return: a => [a] bind: g => [a].map(g) ??
-
bind is flatMap
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.