(alexyorke.github.io)

153 points polygot | 1 comments | 29 Jun 25 17:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source

Show context

danieltanfh95 ◴[03 Jul 25 00:48 UTC] No.44450440[source]▶

The obsession with trying to explain a monad ultimately stems from conflicting explanations and the inability to differentiate between a mathematical monad and monads implemented in software.

Monads in software are just a standard API for any given type. That’s it. Theres no magic here. Just implement the standard and you have a monad.

It grinds my gears seeing monad tutorial after tutorial using the wrong metaphors or misleading explanations

replies(2): >>44450870 #>>44450979 #

1. petesergeant ◴[03 Jul 25 02:13 UTC] No.44450979[source]▶

>>44450440 #

> Monads in software are just a standard API for any given type. That’s it. Theres no magic here.

I don’t think that’s helpful for people to understand _why_ monads though, and that’s generally what people are looking for.

↑

A list is a monad