4/3: something something something monads.
-
-
Replying to @ReinH
I was going to say "and in Haskell both are monads" but didn't think it would make people like my argument better.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I wish that either we had a more approachable way to talk about them or that math phobia wasn't such a thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ReinH
"thing that collects side effects" is only confusing because people really really want it to be confusing.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
They think they don't want it to be hard and then write shit like this: https://wiki.haskell.org/All_About_Monads#Why_should_I_make_the_effort_to_understand_monads.3F … Which betrays their mind.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wycats
The state of monad education in Haskell is... extremely not great. We still haven't been able to improve much on http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Then again, that original paper by Wadler is very approachable for a CS paper about abstract nonsense.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ReinH
Part of the issue is that the abstract description doesn't really match the implementation of common monads like state.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ReinH
You have to think very abstractly about monadic values being functions. It's now how the basic description of monads implies it would work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
For clarity: I don't need you to teach me how the state Monad works ;)
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.