On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:08 AM, John Lato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to thank everyone who replied to my OP, and also perhaps > clarify one point. I wasn't trying to be argumentative or negative > about any work people have done to make Haskell approachable for OO > programmers (or any other programmers, for that matter). I simply > wanted to know what others thought about one item that was misleading > to me in particular, and to see if others either agreed with me or had > similar experiences. > > That being said, I know that it's a great deal of work to put together > a useful tutorial, and I appreciate every one I read. Especially the > monad tutorials, of which it took a half dozen before I got it. > I've read a lot of the Monad tutorials, and I feel like I only get "most of it" to be 100% honest. The State Monad still boggles my mind a little bit. I understand what it's supposed to do and I get the idea about how it works. It's just that when I look at the implementation of >>= for it, I want to crawl into a corner and nibble my fingers. Ok, it's not that bad, but I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed a few times trying to keep all that state in my head about what's REALLY going on there. Perhaps if it were pulled apart step by step I'd have a better understanding. I even tried to implement it once, and failed, however, I never seem to fail to be able to *use* it if someone already implements it for me :-). Kind of like how I know how to operate a car, but I wouldn't trust driving one that I built :-) Dave
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
