On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Michael Giagnocavo <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:mgg@giagnocavo.net">mgg@giagnocavo.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">&gt;Your talk of undergraduate courses to concat two lists isn&#39;t grounded<br>
&gt;in any kind of reality, muddies the waters, and probably scares people<br>
&gt;away from Haskell by giving the impression that it&#39;s much harder than<br>
&gt;it is.<br>
<br>
</div>I&#39;ve been studying Haskell a bit to understand and learn more about functional programming (I&#39;m using F#). I have to say, the scariest thing I&#39;ve faced was exactly what you say. Everything I read built &quot;monads&quot; up to be this ungraspable thing like quantum mechanics.</blockquote>
<div><br>Yeah, monad is on the same level as quantum mechanics.&nbsp; Both are equally simple and popularly construed as ungraspable.<br><br>(However to grasp monads easily you need a background in FP; to grasp QM easily you need a background in linear algebra)<br>
<br>Luke</div></div>