My usual statement on monads is "like any abstraction, it makes sense when you need it"
If you write a lot of go code and think "this error management (!= nil anybody?) is a drag, there has to be a better way! The truth is: go largely looks like how cpp is written at Google, EXCEPT in Google cpp you get to use macros like RETURN_IF_ERROR which handles the ubiquitous StatusOr class.
Is this StatusOr a monad? I'm failing to recall what the monad functions look like internally, but I suspect it's trivial to make it one (I mean, it probably is! And if it's not it would be trivial to make it one)
Do you need to understand monads to see why they're useful here? I don't think so! And so even if you don't know how to build the microwave, you know how to use it.
If you write a lot of go code and think "this error management (!= nil anybody?) is a drag, there has to be a better way! The truth is: go largely looks like how cpp is written at Google, EXCEPT in Google cpp you get to use macros like RETURN_IF_ERROR which handles the ubiquitous StatusOr class.
Is this StatusOr a monad? I'm failing to recall what the monad functions look like internally, but I suspect it's trivial to make it one (I mean, it probably is! And if it's not it would be trivial to make it one)
Do you need to understand monads to see why they're useful here? I don't think so! And so even if you don't know how to build the microwave, you know how to use it.