>>20
I am
>>4. Monads are more powerful and yet, more elegant than most people realise. Our problem is explaining monads in a way that the non-satori would understand. To understand our problem, you need to have a fair understanding of what are monads and what they are used for. If you don't have an understanding like we do, I just want to say this: monads are an elegant way of expressing a
huge range of computations. So yes, we do have a problem with explaining monads.
http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monads-and.html If you can truly follow this web log, then you're definitely on the road to monadic satori.
They're basically for any situation where you need to shuffle data in and out of containers while not having to be explicit about how the wrapping and unwrapping is actually done.
This is a excellent and simplistic explanation of what a monad
does.