Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

As I expected, I can follow it until it gets to monads. The thing about explaining monads isn't even a joke anymore, it's just become mundane reality

It says that (.) is the same thing as (>=>). Fine, but then why are we talking about (<=<) and (=<<) instead of (id) and (.) now?




The point of the article is that even though function composition and monadic composition are made out of different things ((.) and id versus (<=<) and return respectively) they have the same underlying structure: associative composition with identity.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: