

Understanding map and apply - ingve
http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/elevated-world/

======
AdieuToLogic
Very cool discussion regarding higher-kinded programming and FP concepts in
general. One thing I don't get is when the author writes:

    
    
      Personally, I try to avoid using the word "monad"
      on this site and focus on the bind function
      instead, as part of a toolkit of functions for
      solving problems rather than an abstract concept.
    

That's pretty much the definition of "monad."[1] Why shrink from it? Unless
the author for some reason is worried that their content will be shunned due
to using the proper terms for concepts being discussed.

1 - Yes, the existence of a bind operator is not required for satisfying the
Monad laws. Which is why I said "pretty much."

~~~
grndn
Many FP-ers believe that you need to use understand the math or at least use
the "right" terminology before using monads.

There is an obvious counter-example. Millions of C# developers are using
monads already under the name of "LINQ". I don't think it would have been as
popular if Microsoft called things by their "right" names.

