Definitely agree on the monad transformers. Haskell code can be very
succinct, but it requires a particular perspective. I'm working
towards a monad tutorial for Clojure using the intro I put in my
monads implementation as a starting point. I've got quite a bit of
work before I get to that poin
On 22 déc, 08:51, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> [ ... ] In the long run, we should have a monad tutorial for
> Clojure, rather then let everyone learn Haskell first.
+1 on this !
>
> Konrad.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 20.12.2008, at 22:50, jim wrote:
> I also think this would be a great addition to clojure-contrib.
Me too. But who decides what goes into clojure-contrib? Rich?
> Because of the way most monad tutorials are written, monads seem to be
> pretty hard to get your head around. Also, many of the
I also think this would be a great addition to clojure-contrib.
Because of the way most monad tutorials are written, monads seem to be
pretty hard to get your head around. Also, many of the reasons for
the standard monads in Haskell don't exist in impure functional
languages like Clojure. So th
Hi,
Although I am not a big fan of monads (I can't help the feeling this
abstraction is more difficult than the problem to solve) this starts
looking like a nice framework that should probably go into
clojure-contrib (perhaps with policy of not using this mechanism in
other clojure-contrib libs).
