[Haskell-cafe] Re: Can we come out of a monad?
aditya.siram at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 19:59:01 EDT 2010
Agreed. In fact I have the most trouble imagining what Haskell code looked
like before monads.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Richard O'Keefe <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> The thing that I found hardest to understand about monads is that
> they are used to obtain very special consequences (fitting things
> like I/O and updatable arrays into a functional language) without
> actually involving any special machinery. Whenever you look for
> the magic, it's nowhere. But it's happening none the less. It's
> really the monad laws that matter; they express _just_ enough of
> the informal notion of doing things one after the other to be
> useful for side-effective things that need to be done one after
> the other without expressing so much that they preclude
> informally pure things like lists and maybes.
> There's a thing I'm still finding extremely hard about monads,
> and that's how to get into the frame of mind where inventing
> things like Monad and Applicative and Arrows is something I could
> do myself. Functor, yes, I could have invented Functor.
> But not the others.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe