Re: [Haskell-cafe] philosophy of Haskell

[wren ng thornton]

Alberto G. Corona wrote:

But it seems that the trick is so productive because it comes from some
fundamental properties of math, the reality, and maybe the human mind . Jost
now I found this article:

Categorial Compositionality: A Category Theory Explanation for the
Systematicity of Human
Cognition


Ooh, that looks very shiny. Thanks for sharing :)

--
Live well,
~wren
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] philosophy of Haskell

[jerzy . karczmarczuk]

Alberto G. Corona  writes: 


(...) Desugarize the
"do" notation, after that, desugarize the >>= and >>  operators down to the
function call notation and suddenly everithing lost its magic because it
becomes clear that a haskell monad is a sugarization of plain  functional
tricks.


Yep. 

But, BTW, could you tell me what was the result of the final desugarization 
and the BASIC sense of the IO monad for you? 


Jerzy Karczmarczuk
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] philosophy of Haskell

[Alberto G. Corona]

I did`nt care about the underlying theory behind monads once I learn that
the easy way to understand them is trough desugarization. Desugarize the
"do" notation, after that, desugarize the >>= and >>  operators down to the
function call notation and suddenly everithing lost its magic because it
becomes clear that a haskell monad is a sugarization of plain  functional
tricks.

But it seems that the trick is so productive because it comes from some
fundamental properties of math, the reality, and maybe the human mind . Jost
now I found this article:

Categorial Compositionality: A Category Theory Explanation for the
Systematicity of Human
Cognition

That definitively gives me the motivation to learn category theory
seriously.

Alberto



2010/8/7 Michael Mossey 

> When I started to study Haskell, I was surprised that so much emphasis was
> placed on simple things. Monads were introduced to me as basically a
> wrapper, and a bind function that unwrapped something and wrapped something
> else back up again. I didn't understand what the fuss was about. Later I saw
> the amazing feats of expressiveness that were possible. I scratched my head
> in confusion---"Wait, say that again?"
>
> Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell about philosophy (read: Haskell). He's
> actually being humorous, but it applies, in a way:
>
> "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to
> seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical no one will
> believe it."
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Haskell-cafe] philosophy of Haskell

[Michael Mossey]

When I started to study Haskell, I was surprised that so much emphasis was 
placed on simple things. Monads were introduced to me as basically a 
wrapper, and a bind function that unwrapped something and wrapped something 
else back up again. I didn't understand what the fuss was about. Later I 
saw the amazing feats of expressiveness that were possible. I scratched my 
head in confusion---"Wait, say that again?"


Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell about philosophy (read: Haskell). He's 
actually being humorous, but it applies, in a way:


"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to 
seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical no one will 
believe it."

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe