On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 18:50 -0500, Steve Schafer wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:16:04 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > > >What I don't understand is why Monoid and Monad are objectionable, while > >Hash, Vector, Boolean, and Integer are (presumably) not objectionable. > >They all appear equally technical to me. > > I think the name issue is a red herring. The real issue is that, after > being confronted by a concept with an unfamiliar name, it can be very > difficult to figure out the nature of the concept. That is, it's not the > name itself that's the problem, it's the fact that trying to understand > what it means often leads you on an interminable > Alice-in-Wonderland-esque journey that never seems to get anywhere.
I agree with interminable but certainly you go somewhere. A lot of people like Haskell for this property. "How do you know that a monoid action is isomorphic to a monoid homomorphism into an endomorphism monoid?" "Well, I was trying to append two lists in Haskell..." For an actual interminable Alice-in-Wonderland-esque journey that never seems to get anywhere, try to write C# programs that inter-operate with Microsoft Office. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe