On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 20:46 +0200, Gour wrote: [...] > That's right...I tried with Haskell, liked its syntax a lot, but was not > sure I really grokked monads. Moreover, I lost few potential [...]
The biggest problems with monads are that most imperative programmers think they are some massive high magic that is incomprehensible to mere mortals, and most functional programmers think they are simple and that they understand them. Monads are just things with a couple of methods of certain signatures and that have behaviour not unrelated to continuations. If you get higher order functions, currying and partial evaluation, then monads come naturally (*). (*) But only once they were initially thought of as programming entities rather than some aspect of Category Theory. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
