• someacnt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This sounds more complicated than what I know about monads, but also I lost my ability to explain monads when I understood it, soo… I guess this is the best we could afford.

    • expr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I mean, it explains things at length, but it’s all fairly accurate.

      As a senior engineers writing Haskell professionally for a number of years, I’ve found it much simpler to teach about Monads after having taught about Functors and Applicatives first, because there’s a very natural, intuitive progression, and because most people already have an intuitive grasp of Functors because map is cribbed so commonly in other programming languages. I’ve used this approach successfully to teach them to people completely new to Haskell in a fairly short amount of time.

      • balsoft@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        As a senior engineers writing Haskell professionally for a number of years, I’ve found it much simpler to teach about Monads after having taught about Functors and Applicatives first, because there’s a very natural, intuitive progression, and because most people already have an intuitive grasp of Functors because map is cribbed so commonly in other programming languages.

        I agree! I just wanted to explain what Monads are, standalone, and avoid introducing any other concepts.

    • balsoft@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      What part do you think is more complicated than your understanding? I’d love to fix it to make it as simple and understandable as possible.