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.

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.

Well, universal, anyway.

That’s really really really annoying, as someone who has a good, strong brain-based password algorithm and hates it when websites forbid my strong password forcing me to make an exception.

There might be fewer posts on lemmy’s programmer humor, but they make me chuckle more often. Thanks for sharing.