Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is clearly about wording, so let me ask again:

> would you say javascript also "explains a monad" when someone explains how to map/flatmap over an array?



No, but Haskell does not need to explain monad for that either. All examples and docs for map/concatMap over a list are free from having to mention any type class at all.

On the other hand, if you have to explain how the for/yield in zio and why it works for so many different types, you have to basically explain Monad using another name.


> On the other hand, if you have to explain how the for/yield in zio and why it works for so many different types, you have to basically explain Monad using another name.

But again, that's not happening.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: