I did`nt care about the underlying theory behind monads once I learn that
the easy way to understand them is trough desugarization. Desugarize the
"do" notation, after that, desugarize the >>= and >> operators down to the
function call notation and suddenly everithing lost its magic because it
becomes clear that a haskell monad is a sugarization of plain functional
tricks.
But it seems that the trick is so productive because it comes from some
fundamental properties of math, the reality, and maybe the human mind . Jost
now I found this article:
Categorial Compositionality: A Category Theory Explanation for the
Systematicity of Human
Cognitionhttp://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000858?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ploscompbiol/NewArticles+(PLoS+Computational+Biology:+New+Articles)
That definitively gives me the motivation to learn category theory
seriously.
Alberto
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000858?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ploscompbiol/NewArticles+(PLoS+Computational+Biology:+New+Articles)
2010/8/7 Michael Mossey
When I started to study Haskell, I was surprised that so much emphasis was placed on simple things. Monads were introduced to me as basically a wrapper, and a bind function that unwrapped something and wrapped something else back up again. I didn't understand what the fuss was about. Later I saw the amazing feats of expressiveness that were possible. I scratched my head in confusion---"Wait, say that again?"
Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell about philosophy (read: Haskell). He's actually being humorous, but it applies, in a way:
"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical no one will believe it." _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe