What the fuck is a monad
What the fuck is a monad
Brayden Anderson
Other urls found in this thread:
instagram.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Michael Lee
I ask this to everyone who says they study comp sci or do programming
I have never got a clear answer. I suppose it's not important.
Josiah Richardson
>that chin
Yep it has a peepee
Mason Sanders
>What the fuck is a monad
Burrito
Luke Taylor
A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's so hard to understand?
Jonathan Johnson
an indivisible and hence ultimately simple entity, such as an atom or a person.
Aiden Long
>not doing SS+monad
it's like you don't want gains
Zachary Ortiz
In non-mathematical terms, a monad is a function that encapsulates state. A monad is useful for composing together functions that need to operate with shared state.
Levi Gutierrez
So basically there is this thing called purely functional programming and in order to program functionally you can save variables but you can never edit a variable. So all you have to do to learn to do it is write a program and never edit or delete a variable, never edit or delete an array, for dynamic arrays only add to them. Don't edit a single thing and see if you can try to program with it. Only make new things.
You'd think that kinda sucks but if you use trees to optimize it it can actually be pretty fast and as an added bonus you have a higher guarantee that your program will work.
But if you never edit anything ever then it turns out you need something called a monad to work with programs that do edit and delete things. And thats what monads are for. It lets you make a program that doesn't edit or delete anything but that causes another program to edit or delete things. Monads can do other things too but that is why they are so important to languages like haskell.
If you write programs where you edit or delete things you do not mathematically need monads.
Jayden Morales
something that you use to deal with contexts in functional programming
Ethan Perry
When I think of stateful programs interacting with purely functional algorithms/libraries, I think, you give input, get output, do something based on outputs. Simple enough, but probably limited.
So Modads (or at least this particular use case of Monads) would be, instead, injecting certain state-changing behavior that gets triggered from within the purely functional algorithm at some point based on algorithm internals (but obviously it wouldn't touch the purely functional algorithm or else it wouldn't be purely functions). Something like that?
Brody Jenkins
Levi Myers
This
Caleb Thompson
it's what they call each of my nuts because they're so huge. damn, that's a mo nad if i ever saw one!
Zachary Campbell
this
Benjamin Davis
In order to ascertain what it means, the faces need to be studied in more detail. The refraction of the light within the glasses allocates more of a particular realm and has more with time dilation that compared to the other. As to answer why, the reason remains unknown.
The corner describes another instance in which the shadow of the temple regarding the facial structure eats away at them simply. Therefore, it should be noted that despite all this, the realm of reality and fiction in which they exist cannot simply be explained with simple precautions but must be known.
Behind that, behind your vat of blood, there lies it. The God of it all demands the dragon of the golden crown to eat away at the vat of blood and feces. The God of the machinations dislikes the scripts and upon the screen of death, hates that with the passion of death. The abyss and the void of death clings onto the void of the screen. The abyss and files within the abyss cling to the vat and the refraction of the light continues to press forward onto the screen and mirror of disrepair. In order to properly contain it, the addendum of time must be added onto the dilation of the screen and exit out onto the God of machinations and the fiction must be coincided with them. The screaming and the void.
>Regarding the void
The simple equation is resulting of about a life to another. A mammal in which is equal to that of a fox equals about a human life. So, a cow with a head of a pig can thus equate to about two human lives. Therefore, you can say that the lives in the escape of the exit can see forward through the abyss and into the vat of blood and feces of about two human lives. Therefore, it should be stated that the life of a pig with the body of a cow can be seen with the lens of a pig with the body of a fox. With the abyss, it cannot be understated. Therefore, it should be with Lain instead. Inside the machinations of it, lies the fiction of the refraction of the light.
Aaron Allen
>DOG LOVER
like poetry
Nolan Bennett
Monad was the code name at the beta level for what would eventually be renamed to Windows PowerShell.
Do a search for the word "monad" on this page:
en.wikipedia.org
Logan Edwards
The ACTUAL answer that Haskellfags don't want to hear is that a monad is basically just an interface in Java with a couple generic functions but it allows you access to special do syntax as well. That is it. There is nothing impressive about it. It won't make you more productive. It won't make you understand category theory. It's a waste of time. Don't waste your time with functional programming.
Daniel Martin
To be fair, don't monads predate the concept of interfaces? So basically interfaces are monads refined down to syntax that isn't garbage?
Jackson Anderson
Not sure about the dates on the theory, but interfaces are actually more abstract. In Java you can define an interface with an arbitrary number of functions for all types of use cases, a monad is just a specific definition of an interface you just implement for your types. Java is actually more abstract than Haskell. Where is your god now Haskellfags?