Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
I have started an arrow tutorial which many people found easy to follow. It's not finished yet, but since so many people found it useful I'm sharing that unfinished tutorial:
<http://ertes.de/new/tutorials/arrows.html>
It answers the most important questions: What? Why? How? To some extent it also answers: When? But I have to work on that question.
As usual this is useful and I'll be studying it in more detail. For now a general question: What do you think of *teaching* Haskell replacing monads with arrows in the early introduction?
According to my experience the same rule that applies to monads also applies to arrows. In other words: If you can teach monads, you likely also can teach arrows. If you can't teach monads, don't try to teach arrows either. My current position is that understanding applicative functors and monads makes it much easier to learn arrows. But there is also strong evidence that teaching arrows first might be useful, building on the correspondence between Category+Applicative and Arrow. I have not tried this though. About my approach to teaching monads there has been a discussion on Reddit recently: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-May/101338.html> <http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/u04vp/building_intuition_for_monads_without_mentioning/> Greets, Ertugrul -- Key-ID: E5DD8D11 "Ertugrul Soeylemez <es@ertes.de>" FPrint: BD28 3E3F BE63 BADD 4157 9134 D56A 37FA E5DD 8D11 Keysrv: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net/