Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 14/08/07, Dan Piponi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I was one of your students and you said that monads are recipes I
would immediately ask you where the monads are in my factorial program
regardless of whether you had introduced one or two different
analogies for recipes.
Why would you? I really don't see where you would get that idea? If I
tell you that a function returns "a fruit", would you ask where the
fruit in your factorial program is? Probably not. Why would you go off
and take an analogy for monads and apply it to something completely
different and still think the analogy holds?
A function is *not* a recipe in this analogy, it's just a function
(which you hopefully should've covered by the time you get to monads.
Monadic values, and *only* monadic values (not functions!) are to be
viewed as analogous to real world cooking recipes in this analogy.
Functions shouldn't. If you start mixing things together it will get
confused, so just don't!
As a mostly-newbie who is working on his own monad tutorial
(bwah-hah-hah), I share Dan's confusion about your analogy.
Teacher: "Monads are like recipes."
Student: "Aren't functions like recipes, too?"
Teacher: "Well, yes, but we're talking about monads now, not functions."
That response doesn't help the student, because the student already
knows about functions, and would probably understand monads a lot better
if he or she knew how monads are *different from* functions.
(Especially since, umm, isn't the ((->) a) data type a monad?)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
