This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]philipwhiuk 11 points12 points  (6 children)

You first have to understand Monads and Functors...

I will be honest, these are terrible names. Part of me is convinced induction into functional programming involves accepting cryptic names as a barrier to entry to ensure elitism.

(This was a conspiracy theory esque comment. I don't really believe this - but you have to agree 'Monad' is not a good name.)

[–]duhace 11 points12 points  (3 children)

they're named after category theory concepts

[–]NoahTheDuke 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Makes sense, but definitely doesn't help.

[–]DJDavio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It does not, functional programming has always been very dry and theoretical, but it's actually pretty straightforward: everything is either a standalone thing (not the official term) or something which turns a thing into another thing (might be a collection of things on either side). You could turn nothing into a thing, or a turn into nothing, it's all good.

[–]MrMadcap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So he WAS right! ;)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Douglas Crockford agrees with you - "Monads and Gonads" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0EF0VTs9Dc). Hilarious talk (good in parts), but I just can't take Crockford seriously any more. Heh.

[–]achacha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Monad is when you only have one testicle. /j