(the point of the liveblogging this year was shorten the delay between getting the results out in the wild and the journal article, so I didn't bother tidying up the notes before putting them up. )
>The real problem is: comprehensions, folds, monads — WTF? Yet to see anyone from the monad community give a talk to understand monads. It’s typically “you dont need monads” and then the word is used multiple times in the talk. If it’s not important, why mention it so often? Quite often, the FP experience makes normal programmers feel stupid because they don’t break through this terminology barrier. We as a community need to help people break through the barrier of not being formally trained in mathematics for whatever reason (“category theory for breakfast?”) and be productive in FPs.
That seems very inaccurate. Yet to see anyone give a talk on understanding monads? There's dozens of videos of such talks. I don't think anyone in the "monad community" is telling people they don't need monads. It is important, that is why it is mentioned so often. There is a huge focus on helping people learn topics like monads, this isn't an area people are ignoring.
5 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 24.3 ms ] threadWe also write up a more structured version of the results for (open-access) publication in the Journal of Functional Programming. See this for the 2012 preprint: http://anil.recoil.org/papers/drafts/2012-cufp-scribe-DRAFT....
(the point of the liveblogging this year was shorten the delay between getting the results out in the wild and the journal article, so I didn't bother tidying up the notes before putting them up. )
That seems very inaccurate. Yet to see anyone give a talk on understanding monads? There's dozens of videos of such talks. I don't think anyone in the "monad community" is telling people they don't need monads. It is important, that is why it is mentioned so often. There is a huge focus on helping people learn topics like monads, this isn't an area people are ignoring.