472
stop (sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sacredfire@programming.dev 17 points 5 days ago

I don’t know if this is correct, but if it is, this is best answer to this question I’ve ever seen.

[-] Pencilnoob@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

I'm sure someone will be like "um akchuly" to my explanation. But for me it's good enough to think if it that way.

I've worked in Haskell and F# for a decade, and added some of the original code to the Unison compiler, so I'm at least passingly familiar with the subject. Enough that I've had to explain it to new hires a bunch of times to get them to to speed. I find it easier to learn something when I'm given a practical use for it and how it solves that problem.

[-] harryprayiv@infosec.pub 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Lovely response! Very cool to see Unison mentioned. Haskell and Purescript are my daily drivers but I have a huge crush on it even though it intimidates me.

Ps. Unison doesn’t have monads. They are replaced by “abilities”.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It is, although I'm not sure it's complete. A list is one kind of monad, despite working like non-mutable linked lists would in any other language. They just happen to behave monadically, providing an obvious and legal interpretation of the monad functions. Going off of OP you might think monads are all Maybe.

I will say that the concept is overhyped in at this point, at least in Haskell, and there's a lot of monads available that do what plain functional code could but worse.

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
472 points (95.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

22134 readers
2112 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS