Why GitHub used Haskell for Semantic

Re:Why GitHub used Haskell for Semantic by james_s_tayler on Thursday June 06, 2019 @02:55AM (#20112195)

>Similarly, the difficulty to explain Monad is Monad itself is pretty abstract and general.

A Monad is just a Monoid in the Category of Endofunctors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why GitHub used Haskell for Semantic by PaulAJ on Thursday June 06, 2019 @06:39AM (#20113204)

For the non-Haskell readers, I should point out that this is just an old joke in the Haskell community. If you want it explained, see here:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3870088/a-monad-is-just-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why GitHub used Haskell for Semantic by james_s_tayler on Thursday June 06, 2019 @06:47AM (#20113240)

damn... I missed "what's the problem?" haha.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why GitHub used Haskell for Semantic by mikojan on Thursday June 06, 2019 @03:25AM (#20112317)

This. What's so hard to understand about that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why GitHub used Haskell for Semantic by alexanderdmitri on Thursday June 06, 2019 @07:52AM (#20113595)

Would I be correct in saying you just encapsulated the monad state type `this` in an identity `that` by creating a monad transformer out of `understand`?

[ Parent | on HN ]