7 ms·

I recommend: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monads-and.html http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monad... But in the

I recommend: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monads-and.html http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monad... But in the end I think for most people 'understanding' the concept of monads is just something that is not to be had within a couple of hours. It takes a little bit of patience thinking about them and using them for a while.

lmm 13y ago
FWIW I'll post mine: http://m50d.github.io/2013/01/16/generic-contexts.html http://m50d.github.io/2013/01/16/generic-contexts.html
charlieflowers 13y ago
The core problem seems to be that we just don't (yet) have good words for this particular space of abstractions. Many programmers have thought about or solved the same problem monads address, but they haven't mentally labelled the concept, and we certainly have agreed as an industry on these labels. So we're all struggling to try to talk about some things we don't have terms for.
- qu1j0t3 13y ago
  "The core problem seems to be that we just don't (yet) have good words for this particular space of abstractions" How about "functor," "monad," "applicative" etc.?
agumonkey 13y ago
My first non haskell monad tutorial was this dorophone.blogspot.com/2011/04/deep-emacs-part-1.html‎ very 'operational', zero magic, good to get your hands dirty. Dans' tutorial you linked is one of my favorite too.