[Haskell-cafe] A question about State Monad and Monad in general
C K Kashyap
ckkashyap at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 05:06:53 EDT 2010
Okay...I think I am beginning to understand.
Is it right to assume that "magic" is backed by FFI and cannot be done in
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Ketil Malde <ketil at malde.org> wrote:
> C K Kashyap <ckkashyap at gmail.com> writes:
> > I looked at State Monad yesterday and this question popped into my mind.
> > From what I gather State Monad essentially allows the use of Haskell's do
> > notation to "invisibly" pass around a state. So, does the use of Monadic
> > style fetch us more than syntactic convenience?
> At it's heart, monads are "just" syntactic convenience, but like many
> other syntactic conveniences, allows you to structure your code better.
> Thus it's more about programmer efficiency than program efficiency.
> (The "do notation" is syntactic sugar for >>= and >>).
> > Again, if I understand correctly, in Mutable Arrays also, is anything
> > getting modified in place really? If not, what is the real reason for
> > efficiency?
> STArray and IOArrays are "magic", and uses monads to ensure a sequence
> of execution to allow (and implement) in-place modification. So this
> gives you better performance in many cases. Don't expect this from
> generic monads.
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe