This sounds more complicated than what I know about monads, but also I lost my ability to explain monads when I understood it, soo.. I guess this is the best we could afford.

[–] expr@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, it explains things at length, but it's all fairly accurate.

As a senior engineers writing Haskell professionally for a number of years, I've found it much simpler to teach about Monads after having taught about Functors and Applicatives first, because there's a very natural, intuitive progression, and because most people already have an intuitive grasp of Functors because map is cribbed so commonly in other programming languages. I've used this approach successfully to teach them to people completely new to Haskell in a fairly short amount of time.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As a senior engineers writing Haskell professionally for a number of years, I’ve found it much simpler to teach about Monads after having taught about Functors and Applicatives first, because there’s a very natural, intuitive progression, and because most people already have an intuitive grasp of Functors because map is cribbed so commonly in other programming languages.

I agree! I just wanted to explain what Monads are, standalone, and avoid introducing any other concepts.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

What part do you think is more complicated than your understanding? I'd love to fix it to make it as simple and understandable as possible.