The Absolute Best Intro to Monads For Software Engineers 

My experience as well, though I realise as much having already understood the concept via classic methods (see a book on Haskell), so I was like "Yep, that's totally it". I doubt it would have helped me if I had used it as tutorial material. Still, a stellar explanation

It turns out that we have been using monads without even knowing it for years.XD

Feel you

Agree

Maybe it was. I gave up when I heard the stupid music.

I watched this video last year, and this year, I already do not remember what it is. Time to watch this video again. :)

@@KingTheRat I did that recently too 😆

you have to trick a veteran functional programmer into helping you if you start explaining monads to enough people that already understand them, eventually one will tell you 'oh you don't _actually really_ understand monads unless you understand…' and suddenly you will feel this clearness in your brain you can suddenly explain this concept and all of the useful ramifications

I think that's true for most coding problems ;)

This is greate video that explain how to use monads and how fo recognize them, but in true math style there is whole universe that you skiped.

@@GesteromTVAnd that's how he shoved it into a 15-minute video, and not a 60-minute lecture 😝

Monads are a brain virus which makes you believe in Monads

And this explains why don't understand Rust... I didn't understand monads!

I'm not familiar with this programming language. What language is this?

@@evanroderick91 I think this is typescript

@@evanroderick91 as mentioned before it is TypeScript: JavaScript but with types

I agree with you about video ‚Dont fear the monad’. Also explains it really well

It's funny you mentioned the computerphile video because I likewise, even in using monads wherever applicable, watched that video and felt like I understood it even less. Even funnier still is the disclaimer he gave of "well people criticize mathematicians for not being able to explain their concepts in relatable terms, but I think they should just get over it". And it's like... they will get over it, by just ignoring their work & having to rediscover it anyways in their own contexts.

By programmer you mean code 🐒

@@user-tx4wj7qk4t i don't, and i'm a little confused at what you're implying. do you mean that no "real" programmer requires it to be explained like this? or that you don't think the code in the video is very good? please, enlighten me

@@erikgrundy a software engineer is supposed to be an engineer. An engineer uses math and science to solve real life problems. However "software engineers" are the only kind of engineers who hate math and science and think even simple basic math is "too complex" and are always looking for immediate answers on "how" to use something, with very little understanding of "what" something is or "why" it is. The explanation above is terrible for very many reasons but mainly because he doesn't actually explain anything any what a monad actually is, it's just overly convoluted examples of what you can do with it which ironically is more complex than if somebody just explained what it is. You saying "feels like something a programmer would do" means code monkey because actual software engineers understand math and don't explain things this way

bro WDYM YOU ARE BLIND AND WATCHING RU-vid

@@steveloco1170 you do realize blind people live normal lives?

@@steveloco1170 main thing to know is "blind" is shorthand for visually impaired. Also you can learn from hearing too.

The way I understood it, monads require a logging of sorts no? Or was that just one use case for monad patterns

Nevermind it was just an example.

You've got no idea what you're saying and just saying things lol

You’d probably pass one “runWithLogs()” into another, nesting the functions in the same way the types are nested

Yep, because Promise.then() has the same type signature and meaning as flatMap (or bind in monad). It transforms promise, using a function transforming wrapped value into a new promise.

​@@ivanjermakov wouldn't this be trivially solved by back-tracking the function through the unwrap, since both monads are Generic in their implementation? If you have a Future, what you probably have is something in the form of future(optional(5)), which can also be expressed as a chain operation as: let result: Promise = createOptional(5) | .createFuture($0) in which case you should probably be able to do something like `result.value.value` which should resolve without much problem: Unfulfilled promise would nil .none in the optional would also nil

Keywords are: monad transformers (more popular, safer to start with this) and extensible-effects (imho cooler) 😄

None of what you said is true

In Javascript Promises/Futures are an example of a Monad, and in that case then is flatMap/ >>=. However, Monads generalize the idea of promises/futures to be able to embed any language with any sort-of semantics into the language, so promises/futures are a way of embedding asynchronous computing into a stateful language and have it look like synchronous code just like monads are used to embed imperative/stateful languages into purely function Haskell. The thing about monads is that you have to know their 5 other definitions and many other examples to see how monads can shorten your code by. You have to know Monads other definition like flatMappables containers where flattenable containers are called Monoids, Mappables are called Functors.

Yes, worst part(s) of the video, that.

Exactly! So painful to hear every time. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_typographical_symbols_and_punctuation_marks

That's a circumflex.

yeah, now that i think about it the oscilloscope video was quite similar to this one