The biggest hurdle to my understanding monads was the insistence on using metaphors. Most mainstream languages don’t let you approach new concepts from a mathematical standpoint, and learning how to do that was necessary before I really grokked what a monad was. Fish, boxes, burritos–they all just confused me. A monad is a type that provides two functions:

return wraps a value in the monad

bind applies a function to a wrapped value

These two functions obey three laws:

Left identity. Where f is a function that returns a wrapped value, and a is an unwrapped value:

bind (return a) f := f a

Right identity. Where m is an already-wrapped value:

bind m return := m

Associativity. Where f and g are functions that return wrapped values, and m is an already-wrapped value:

bind (bind m f) g := bind m (λx -> bind (bind x f) g)

Trying to put more metaphors on top of these laws was not helpful to me, because a lot of the metaphors fall down for different types of Monad. IO and State don’t feel like “boxes” in the same way that Maybe and Either types do, for example, and Identity doesn’t really have any inherent meaning.

Because while it’s one of my favorite tutorials, I feel like this definitional focus fails to instill an operational understanding; i.e. it fails to help the learner answer the questions, “How do I use monads?”, “When do I use monads?”, and “How do I write a new monad?”

I do like that! I’d never seen it before. I think that the latter class of understanding is different: once you understand what it is, then you can give examples of how useful things relate to it in terms of the definition. You can scope your metaphors down to a more manageable level (like “railways” for Either), and actually get mileage out of them instead of confusing the issue with an illustration that doesn’t apply to the general case.

The biggest hurdle to my understanding monads was the insistence on using metaphors. Most mainstream languages don’t let you approach new concepts from a mathematical standpoint, and learning how to do that was necessary before I really grokked what a monad

was. Fish, boxes, burritos–they all just confused me. A monad is a type that provides two functions:`return`

wraps a value in the monad`bind`

applies a function to a wrapped valueThese two functions obey three laws:

Left identity.Where`f`

is a function that returns a wrapped value, and`a`

is an unwrapped value:Right identity.Where`m`

is an already-wrapped value:Associativity.Where`f`

and`g`

are functions that return wrapped values, and`m`

is an already-wrapped value:Trying to put more metaphors on top of these laws was not helpful to me, because a lot of the metaphors fall down for different types of Monad.

`IO`

and`State`

don’t feel like “boxes” in the same way that`Maybe`

and`Either`

types do, for example, and`Identity`

doesn’t really haveanyinherent meaning.So, you’re saying you would have liked the Zero-Analogy Monad Tutorial?

Because while it’s one of my favorite tutorials, I feel like this definitional focus fails to instill an operational understanding; i.e. it fails to help the learner answer the questions, “How do I use monads?”, “When do I use monads?”, and “How do I write a new monad?”

I do like that! I’d never seen it before. I think that the latter class of understanding is different: once you understand

what it is, then you can give examples of how useful things relate to itin terms ofthe definition. You can scope your metaphors down to a more manageable level (like “railways” for`Either`

), and actually get mileage out of them instead of confusing the issue with an illustration that doesn’t apply to the general case.This explanation in Scheme was super helpful for me, as a non-Haskelliere. Or at least I

thinkI understand monads now…