No, you are not.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @multix_labs @luqui and
Can I just point out, before we go any further, that monads have nothing to do with IO, at all? Unless we change the definition of "to do with" to also mean that the reverse function hasa something to do with bananas. What a crazy fantastic day!
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @multix_labs @dibblego and
We have a three-way disagreement it appears. How wonderfully messy. ;)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't think it is reasonable to "disagree on what monad means." I do not believe there is a disagreement. There is an error, for whatever reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Eh, kind of. I agree that we can't really disagree on the *definition* of monad (except about subtle distinctions perhaps) But I think it is reasonable to disagree when we're discussing its meaning in terms of its role in the craft of programming.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't agree. Monads have one practical purpose: to abstract a common pattern, so as not to otherwise repeat it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
A lot of software is broken because developers don’t understand the specific things Monads are pointing to. A lot of software understanding is broken because the pedagogy around Monads doesn’t generalize to enough mental platforms. FP is right, there’s other work to do now.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
This again, is total nonsense. Almost sure this is a piss-take :)
-
-
Feeling a bit embarrassed for taking it seriously ...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Haha run with it anyway :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.