The (>>=) operation for the state monad can be implemented with no understanding at all. Just watch djinn make the code for it. And djinn doesn't understand the state monad, I promise. :) -- Lennart 2008/10/15 David Leimbach :

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:08 AM, John Lato wrote:

...

I'd like to thank everyone who replied to my OP, and also perhaps clarify one point. I wasn't trying to be argumentative or negative about any work people have done to make Haskell approachable for OO programmers (or any other programmers, for that matter). I simply wanted to know what others thought about one item that was misleading to me in particular, and to see if others either agreed with me or had similar experiences.

That being said, I know that it's a great deal of work to put together a useful tutorial, and I appreciate every one I read. Especially the monad tutorials, of which it took a half dozen before I got it.

I've read a lot of the Monad tutorials, and I feel like I only get "most of it" to be 100% honest. The State Monad still boggles my mind a little bit. I understand what it's supposed to do and I get the idea about how it works. It's just that when I look at the implementation of >>= for it, I want to crawl into a corner and nibble my fingers. Ok, it's not that bad, but I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed a few times trying to keep all that state in my head about what's REALLY going on there. Perhaps if it were pulled apart step by step I'd have a better understanding. I even tried to implement it once, and failed, however, I never seem to fail to be able to *use* it if someone already implements it for me :-). Kind of like how I know how to operate a car, but I wouldn't trust driving one that I built :-) Dave _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Hi I didn't understand Monads until I read this: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monads_as_Containers It took me quite a long time to "get" them too, but slowly over time it will sink in. Thanks Neil ________________________________ From: haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-cafe-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of David Leimbach Sent: 15 October 2008 4:16 pm To: John Lato Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: What I wish someone had told me... On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:08 AM, John Lato wrote: I'd like to thank everyone who replied to my OP, and also perhaps clarify one point. I wasn't trying to be argumentative or negative about any work people have done to make Haskell approachable for OO programmers (or any other programmers, for that matter). I simply wanted to know what others thought about one item that was misleading to me in particular, and to see if others either agreed with me or had similar experiences. That being said, I know that it's a great deal of work to put together a useful tutorial, and I appreciate every one I read. Especially the monad tutorials, of which it took a half dozen before I got it. I've read a lot of the Monad tutorials, and I feel like I only get "most of it" to be 100% honest. The State Monad still boggles my mind a little bit. I understand what it's supposed to do and I get the idea about how it works. It's just that when I look at the implementation of >>= for it, I want to crawl into a corner and nibble my fingers. Ok, it's not that bad, but I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed a few times trying to keep all that state in my head about what's REALLY going on there. Perhaps if it were pulled apart step by step I'd have a better understanding. I even tried to implement it once, and failed, however, I never seem to fail to be able to *use* it if someone already implements it for me :-). Kind of like how I know how to operate a car, but I wouldn't trust driving one that I built :-) Dave ============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ==============================================================================

The best analogy I have found on Monads (written for Scala) is the one that compared them to Elephants. The author was referring the the blind men and elephant story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Derek Elkins wrote:

On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 08:16 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:08 AM, John Lato wrote: I'd like to thank everyone who replied to my OP, and also perhaps clarify one point. I wasn't trying to be argumentative or negative about any work people have done to make Haskell approachable for OO programmers (or any other programmers, for that matter). I simply wanted to know what others thought about one item that was misleading to me in particular, and to see if others either agreed with me or had similar experiences.

That being said, I know that it's a great deal of work to put together a useful tutorial, and I appreciate every one I read. Especially the monad tutorials, of which it took a half dozen before I got it.

I've read a lot of the Monad tutorials, and I feel like I only get "most

of it" to be 100% honest.

Maybe the problem isn't you, but what you are reading...

...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Daryoush Weblog: http://perlustration.blogspot.com/