OMG. That might just be the funniest god-damned thing I've ever seen in my life. Thanks for sharing that!

On a separate note: does anyone know where this footage is originally from? Some WWII movie, I would guess?

Probably one of the best "WWII movies" (it's really only about the final days in the bunker) ever.

Jokes aside, a book like CTM shows both paradigms have their place, and can also co-exist in the same system.

Besides, this paper cleared all my doubts about high-order FP having a lot of (unexploited) potential:

http://conal.net/papers/compiling-to-categories/

This made me laugh way more than it should have. "Why don't you pattern match my fist all over your faces!"

And the last line....

Alright, maybe I will keep reading this book.

t1xtt, from the txfonts package, freely available

    Hitler: What's a monad anyway? No one who understands monads can explain what they are
    Underling (hurriedly): A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors

A helpful analogy can be drawn by comparing two facts: a composition of something with its inverse produces the identity (a.k.a. unity, to use the Latin root), while a composition of something (e.g. a functor) with its "adjoint" (not quite the inverse) produces something similar that is better said in Greek.

Gotta be able to laugh at yourself sometimes.

(And to be fair, half of them are the same overused ones. But the others are good.)