To the lobsters who haven’t seen Scott’s videos, if you can spare an hour, I highly encourage you to check one out (I like the one at NDC Oslo better).
You’re going to want to apply the abstract concept in more places than “Maybe”. Possibly even combine it with other abstractly similar concepts. You’ll want types when that happens.
For whatever reason, I find these “railroad” style explanations easier to understand than ones that say “monad”. But, I guess that’s because most posts I’ve read about monads do a poor job of defining the word “monad”.
Related: https://lobste.rs/s/9cbulb/railway_oriented_programming
To the lobsters who haven’t seen Scott’s videos, if you can spare an hour, I highly encourage you to check one out (I like the one at NDC Oslo better).
Agree entirely, I watched the video in that talk he’s a fun presenter.
http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/monads.html
Specifically, “Maybe chaining”
You’re going to want to apply the abstract concept in more places than “Maybe”. Possibly even combine it with other abstractly similar concepts. You’ll want types when that happens.
Do you think the author never heard the word monad, or just tried not to scare people away?
For whatever reason, I find these “railroad” style explanations easier to understand than ones that say “monad”. But, I guess that’s because most posts I’ve read about monads do a poor job of defining the word “monad”.
Yep. Example:
https://twitter.com/ttuegel/status/581260649231192064
https://twitter.com/ttuegel/status/581261284055871489
https://twitter.com/ttuegel/status/581261598532247552
Related video: https://vimeo.com/97344498
Confusing with Return oriented programming, but otherwise, a good idea, right?