Since you raised the linguistic characterization, (..'monad' is an adjective, not a noun, so your question doesn't apply), you'd therefor...
Since you raised the linguistic characterization, (..'monad' is an adjective, not a noun, so your question doesn't apply), you'd therefore say there's "thus no answer" to the question: what's the difference between a "blue envelope" and a basic envelope? ('blue' being an adjective) In my experience, here's often what's lacking with teaching the latest in programming formalisms: folks need the new concepts explained in some terms of the old in order to understand them, (hence why i was trying to get someone to explain monads in terms of crusty old terms like (C) structures). The frustrating tendency always seems to be to concoct a host of new terms, and then to define them only among those unfamiliar terms; often giving well-intentioned detailed examples yet only using those novel terms and syntax. It would be akin to teaching a foreign language but not even trying to pick up a familiar object and point to it in association with saying the new term for it. By the bye, i accept and appreciate the explanation given somewhere here (likely by 'im3w1l'), that monadization generates a different structure for different incidences of monadification. This helps conceptualizing the mechanism, in a way that "binding of flattened functors returning null or non-null monads" doesn't. It's worthy to assume that we didn't all spring forth full grown out of the forehead of a particular computer science theory class. Nonetheless, the efforts are appreciated. Even given the root commenter here promised that monad was a "simple concept" with a simple definition. If you scan about this comment section, do you think this view is well supported?
Posted by theophrastus on Jul 21, 2015, 3:34 PM
Tags
Related issues
- > Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them.
- Hehe, yeah I'm not sure when John Stewart would have worked there or what the pain points were for him, but he worked there for a bit.
- https://www.apple.com/shop/product/mxcl3ll/a/magic-keyboard-...
- If first-order hybrids made up only a small proportion of the total population of humans and Neanderthals, then the probability that a pa...
- Well, I'd be interested to hear what some of those nuances are, personally.
- My biggest Amazon annoyance.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (E-commerce)
> Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them.
Hehe, yeah I'm not sure when John Stewart would have worked there or what the pain points were for him, but he worked there for a bit.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/mxcl3ll/a/magic-keyboard-...
If first-order hybrids made up only a small proportion of the total population of humans and Neanderthals, then the probability that a pa...
Well, I'd be interested to hear what some of those nuances are, personally.
My biggest Amazon annoyance.
> There's not really an unmet need for innovation in broadband delivery; the issue is running new wires broadband has costs, and in a lot...
Speaking of Amazon's account process, I have a really annoying problem with theirs.
Since you raised the linguistic characterization, (..'monad' is an adjective, not a noun, so your question doesn't apply), you'd therefor...
Since you raised the linguistic characterization, (..'monad' is an adjective, not a noun, so your question doesn't apply), you'd therefore say there's "thus no answer" to the question: what's the difference between a "blue envelope" and a basic envelope? ('blue' being an adjective) In my experience, here's often what's lacking with teaching the latest in programming formalisms: folks need the new concepts explained in some terms of the old in order to understand them, (hence why i was trying to get someone to explain monads in terms of crusty old terms like (C) structures). The frustrating tendency always seems to be to concoct a host of new terms, and then to define them only among those unfamiliar terms; often giving well-intentioned detailed examples yet only using those novel terms and syntax. It would be akin to teaching a foreign language but not even trying to pick up a familiar object and point to it in association with saying the new term for it. By the bye, i accept and appreciate the explanation given somewhere here (likely by 'im3w1l'), that monadization generates a different structure for different incidences of monadification. This helps conceptualizing the mechanism, in a way that "binding of flattened functors returning null or non-null monads" doesn't. It's worthy to assume that we didn't all spring forth full grown out of the forehead of a particular computer science theory class. Nonetheless, the efforts are appreciated. Even given the root commenter here promised that monad was a "simple concept" with a simple definition. If you scan about this comment section, do you think this view is well supported?
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.