from Hacker News

The "Monad Tutorial Fallacy" (2009)

by manaskarekar on 5/12/24, 3:42 AM with 5 comments

  • by erik_seaberg on 5/12/24, 5:06 AM

  • by karmakaze on 5/12/24, 3:48 PM

    When folks ask "What is a monad?", they usually don't want the technical meaning, they're wondering what they can do to see why they should care or take the time to learn/use them. Here's a summary[0] that's as good as any I've seen.

    > Summary. We have seen that a monad is a type constructor, a function called return, and a combinator function called bind or >>= . These three elements work together to encapsulate a strategy for combining computations to produce more complex computations.

    [0] https://wiki.haskell.org/All_About_Monads#Summary

  • by julienfr112 on 5/12/24, 1:13 PM

    Like models, all abstraction are False, but some are usefull. I never found Monad to be usefull : a abstraction shared by async/await and map/list comprehension is for me a bad abstraction, because as a developper I typically want to know if I'm dealing with the former or the later. And want to manually combine them, like with gather.

  • by ggm on 5/12/24, 4:24 AM

    It always disappointed me how utterly unlike a burrito a monad turns out to be. No hint of beans, queso, or salad.

  • by Iceland_jack on 5/12/24, 9:59 PM

    That reminds me, I should write a Monad tutorial.