I did`nt care about the underlying theory behind monads once I learn that
the easy way to understand them is trough desugarization. Desugarize the
do notation, after that, desugarize the = and operators down to the
function call notation and suddenly everithing lost its magic because it
becomes
Alberto G. Corona writes:
(...) Desugarize the
do notation, after that, desugarize the = and operators down to the
function call notation and suddenly everithing lost its magic because it
becomes clear that a haskell monad is a sugarization of plain functional
tricks.
Yep.
But, BTW,
Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But it seems that the trick is so productive because it comes from some
fundamental properties of math, the reality, and maybe the human mind . Jost
now I found this article:
Categorial Compositionality: A Category Theory Explanation for the
Systematicity of Human
When I started to study Haskell, I was surprised that so much emphasis was
placed on simple things. Monads were introduced to me as basically a
wrapper, and a bind function that unwrapped something and wrapped something
else back up again. I didn't understand what the fuss was about. Later I
