Re:Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors
by 6nf on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:27PM
(#28476758)
You have to start with the 'simplified but not technically perfectly correct' and then add in the nuances to get to the real point. Starting with words like 'functors' that most software engineers today will not be able to define is not useful.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors
by JadeNB on Thursday September 09, 2021 @11:15PM
(#28477409)
> Starting with words like 'functors' that most software engineers today will not be able to define is not useful.
But the parent post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28476325 to which lmm was responding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28476569 said "Wait, a functor is just a pure unary function?" If someone asks you the definition of a technical term, you sort of have to at least refer to the technical term.
Re:Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors
by Littlebigo on Thursday September 09, 2021 @10:25PM
(#28477078)
The article is likely aimed at intermediate-ish FP programmers, though, not people with no prior knowledge. (Although I suspect it is an example of "learning by teaching", since it is wrong on many counts.)
Learn You a Haskell mentions functors in chapter 8 and teaches them properly in chapter 11.
http://learnyouahaskell.com/making-our-own-types-and-typecla...
Re:Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors
by mhitza on Friday September 10, 2021 @06:32AM
(#28479685)
In my opinion Monads at this point should be considered a beginner Haskell concept.
Regardless of how LYAH chooses to order things, (when have you used a Zipper last time?), they are too essential to any beginner Haskell program.
In my opinion we need a new imperative first approach to Haskell teaching, to develop intuition on monads quickly.