Yeah, the thing is, "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors" is kind of a meme among non-Haskell developers. Personally, I think Haskell is a very interesting language. The mathematical jargon, however, is impenetrable, and this particular expression is kind of the poster child. I'mma go look at Erlang if I want my functional language fix without making my head hurt, thank ye very much.
I wish this was exaggerated, but it isn't at all. Every time I try to learn Haskell, I end up in some tutorial: "You know how you sometimes need to represent eigenvectors in an n-dimensional plane with isotonically theoretical pulsarfunctions? Haskell types make that easy!"
8 replies
Every monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, it is literally the definition of monad. But what do you expect from clippy...
Yeah, the thing is, "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors" is kind of a meme among non-Haskell developers. Personally, I think Haskell is a very interesting language. The mathematical jargon, however, is impenetrable, and this particular expression is kind of the poster child. I'mma go look at Erlang if I want my functional language fix without making my head hurt, thank ye very much.
Erlang fucks, haskell is the nerd in the corner at the party crying "they don't know about my mathematical purity"
Haskell's got better type system tho
OCaml has an equally good type system without being pretentious about it
I wish this was exaggerated, but it isn't at all. Every time I try to learn Haskell, I end up in some tutorial: "You know how you sometimes need to represent eigenvectors in an n-dimensional plane with isotonically theoretical pulsarfunctions? Haskell types make that easy!"
There is no way.
It's a thing! Sadly it won't rewrite Haskell codebases for you, though.