282

submitted 6 days ago by ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] someacnt@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days 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 5 points 6 days 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 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.