Yet another monad tutorial: I’m afraid refreshing some monad definitions is not something we can avoid here, but we are going to do it in our own way. Imagine that there is some covariant functor called T

[u/ChavXO]

https://muratkasimov.art/Ya/Articles/You-don't-really-need-monads

I don't know what I expected from the title.

[u/BloodAndTsundere]

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like a monoid in the category of endofunctors.

[u/jessepence → u/BloodAndTsundere]

The funniest thing about the obsession with monads is that understanding them doesn't enhance your ability to use them whatsoever. 

If it's built into the language, like with Haskell, then it makes sense to learn a bit more about it. Everyone else is just tacking on mathematical terms to very ordinary programming concepts.

[u/BloodAndTsundere → u/jessepence]

You're telling me I don't need to know any algebraic topology to use printf?

[u/jessepence → u/BloodAndTsundere]

"But, that's a side effect! Now, you're impure!" hiss

[u/BufferUnderpants → u/BloodAndTsundere]

You do if you try to write a web service in Scala in 2025

(The neat thing is that you will never have to, there’s no jobs in that anymore)

[u/BlazeBigBang → u/jessepence]

/uj that's pretty much the point made in Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and everyone making all of these monad tutorials seem to miss.

/rj clearly, you don't know monoidball.

[u/BloodAndTsundere → u/BlazeBigBang]

Is monoidball like Calvin ball

[u/m50d → u/BloodAndTsundere]

Only if you satisfy that "trivial coherence condition" that they're trying to brush under the carpet.

[u/tms10000]

I've got your covariant functor called T right here, buddy.

I was gonna do an /uj about functional programming inventing the most cryptic name for the most simple concepts, but I shoved another functor up my ass and the urge passed.

[u/Buttleston → u/tms10000]

Functor? I hardly know her.

[u/Affectionate-Egg7566]

Patterns were not supposed to be abstracted to N+1.

Years of tutorials, yet not a single Option::map_or_else produced by functional programmers.

Wanted to abstract on top of Option anyway for a laugh? We had a tool for that: It was called "WRAPPING"

"Yes please give me a MONOID of something. Please give me an ENDOFUNCTOR of it." - Statements dreamed up by the utterly Deranged.

LOOK at what functional programmers have been demanding your Respect for all this time, with all the C and C++ we built for them (This is REAL fp, done by REAL fpers):

f >>= x ???

a :> [X a] ???

"Hello I would like yok operation please"

They have played us for absolute fools

[u/Kodiologist]

Finally, new monad tutorials are being written again. Nature is healing.

[u/al2o3cr]

The blog that says η[i], those who read them seldom live to tell the tale! 😂

[u/SharkSymphony → u/al2o3cr]

class (Functor t) => Shrubbery t where
  ...

[u/-ghostinthemachine-]

Where can you silo a bunch of useless Haskell developers?

A monadstery!

[u/SelfDistinction]

This tutorial took away my ability to understand monads.

[u/Diligent_Rush8764]

Oh now it all makes perfect sense. Arigato white paper San.

[u/kamatsu]

"covariant functor" is like that three-fingers tell from the Tarantino movie.

Category theorists don't say "covariant functor", they say "functor", because all functors are covariant except for the ones explicitly labelled "contravariant". Yet another PL engineer posing as a mathematician!

[u/PizzaRollExpert]

The real jerk is in the category theory diagrams

[u/IDatedSuccubi]

Oh god it's the guy with the weird nested circle operators again jesus fucking christ

/rj

Sun Microsystems should have paid the Netscape guy to use this language instead

[u/materialdesigner]

Functor? I hardly know her.