We have a three-way disagreement it appears. How wonderfully messy. ;)
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
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 -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @multix_labs @luqui and
I am going to assume this incoherent nonsense is a piss-take.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
I don't think you'd be able to do my job with those misunderstandings :)
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.