• david@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t call it a monad, call it a structured data type or something, that’s what it is! Calling it a monad is like saying that you’re using a curve of constant normal intersection point. Why not just say it’s a wheel?

    Yes, it’s mathematically true that you’re having a smooth ride precisely because the normals have a constant intersection point, but it’s also true to say that it’s a wheel and it goes round and isn’t bumpy and doesn’t scrape, and people can get a handle on that.

    So yeah, use a Result or Option or Maybe structured data type because it keeps explicit track of whether there’s a value or not, and yeah, you can change or combine them and preserve the tracking, but there’s no point calling it a monad unless you’re trying to make people believe that avoiding the $1bn mistake of allowing/using null requires category theory. It doesn’t, it’s just a structured data type. It’s simpler than an array! Stop calling it a monad.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Monad” is a shorter term though. “Structured data type” reads almost as bulky as “Curve of constant normal intersection points”.

      • david@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        True. But the word Monad has done more harm to the accessibility, popularity and reputation of pure functional programming than pretty much anything else.

        Yeah, I could have said circle rather than curve of constant normal intersection points, but that word is very commonly understood, so it’s not that same as unnecessarily calling something a Monad. Maybe it’s the equivalent of calling it a 2-manifold instead of a wheel.

        Perhaps just ditch the generalisation, then, and just call them Result or Maybe. After all, circle is a short word, but we just call them wheels.