FUCK I DON'T GET MONADS AT ALL
1
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-05 19:14
SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THEM TO ME AND WHY THEY'RE USEFUL
2
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-05 19:24
Read SICP.
3
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-05 19:28
>>2
For once, reading SICP isn't the answer.
4
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-05 19:37
The subject for this thread has changed. New subject : Let's get JIDF to visit /pr / ! /pr / , I think being visited by JIDF would make him a happier person. Their e-mail address is admin@thejidf.org .
5
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-05 20:40
>>4
Not interested. I'd rather see the Mossad visit Nikita and turn him inside out, like a glove.
6
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-05 20:42
>>5
I love
JEWS and I love your idea too.
7
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-05 20:42
>>5
U MENA LIKE A
yarmukle
8
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-05 22:32
Monads are like burritos. They make you fart.
9
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-05 23:56
Do you know Haskell (at least the basics), or do you want to know how they're useful in other languages?
10
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-06 0:35
11
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-06 0:37
You don't have the balls, faggot. Without the gonads, you'll never grok monads.
12
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-06 0:53
>>1
First read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(category_theory )
then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(functional_programming )
If you still did not get it, please reply what you think it is. I can perhaps explain if I know where you are confused. If you understand some basic chemistry formula, then you have a grand idea of what monads are.
13
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-06 3:37
>>8
lol, you said fart. its funny because bum.
14
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-06 20:47
a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?
15
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-06 23:58
>>14
Thank you for defining monad. Now please define monoid, category, endofunctor, and problem.
16
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-07 0:22
>>15
The problem is that you're wasting your fucking time on a language that creates difficult problems just so it can solve them.
17
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-07 0:27
A RECTOMORPHISM IS JUST A MONOID IN THE CATEGORY OF MY ANUS
18
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-07 0:42
a language that creates difficult problems just so it can solve them.
19
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-07 0:42
>>18
purely functional programming.
20
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-07 0:48
>>19
statically non-recursively typed purely functional programming
21
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-07 0:56
>>20
don't get me started on the type system. fucking hell.
22
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-07 2:01
>>21
As a Haskell-lover, I'd like to read any thoughts about the deficiencies of the type system.
23
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-07 2:21
24
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-07 2:59
>>23
Is there any way to come up with a type for that? Or must you forgo types for such flexibility?
25
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-07 3:03
>>24
Cyclic types yo
f :: f -> a
26
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-07 3:36
27
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-08 0:13
>>25
That's not cyclic, the first
f is a function name and the second is a type variable.
Prelude> (id :: id -> id) 1
28
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-08 1:05
29
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-08 2:28
>>27
Actually f is a type variable. Learn to read!
30
Name:
Anonymous
2013-03-08 2:33
>>24
OCaml gives its type as
('a -> 'b as 'a) -> 'b.
31
Name:
Anonymous 2013-03-08 13:11
>>29
There are two
fs and they mean completely different things. What you're looking for is
type F = forall a. F -> a, which doesn't compile. Am I being trolled?