On Saturday 14 July 2007 05:21, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Still, while the concept is simple, it's hard to sum up in just a few
words what a monad is. (Especially given that Haskell has so many
different ones - and they seem superficially to bear no resemblence to
each other.)
Well, how about
On 7/12/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Monads take a while to get used to, but they're not so scary after that...
The problem with monads is that there is a gazillion tutorials to
explain them, each with their own analogy that works well for the
author but not necessarily for you.
D.V. wrote:
On 7/12/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Monads take a while to get used to, but they're not so scary after
that...
The problem with monads is that there is a gazillion tutorials to
explain them, each with their own analogy that works well for the
author but not
Thanks for the advice. I did not really deeply investigate the monad type
classes yet...
It looks like its gonna take a long time for me to learn Haskell. I'm not
sure if my long history of imperative and object-oriented programming has
something to do with it. Reading Haskell books like SOE is
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:01 +0200, peterv wrote:
Thanks for the advice. I did not really deeply investigate the monad type
classes yet...
It looks like its gonna take a long time for me to learn Haskell. I'm not
sure if my long history of imperative and object-oriented programming has
