On 20.12.2008, at 22:50, jim wrote: > I also think this would be a great addition to clojure-contrib.
Me too. But who decides what goes into clojure-contrib? Rich? > Because of the way most monad tutorials are written, monads seem to be > pretty hard to get your head around. Also, many of the reasons for > the standard monads in Haskell don't exist in impure functional > languages like Clojure. So there's less motivation to understand > them. But I found that once I understood them, they are a powerful > addition to my conceptual toolbox. I agree. I see monads as the functional equivalent to aspect-oriented programming: a way to implement separation of concerns. I also think that some aspects of monads are clearer in Clojure than they are in Haskell. Haskell's way to implement monads as data types has some practical advantages, but it also obscures the algorithmic nature of monads a bit. Moreover, it makes some things impossible, for example executing a single piece of code under different monads (easy in Clojure by having the monad as a variable), which is quite handy sometimes, e.g. for debugging. I also prefer monad transformers implemented as functions to monad transformers implemented as pretty complicated abstract data types with boilerplate code to get data in and out. In the long run, we should have a monad tutorial for Clojure, rather then let everyone learn Haskell first. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
