Yeah, the thing is, "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors" is kind of a meme among non-Haskell developers. Personally, I think Haskell is a very interesting language. The mathematical jargon, however, is impenetrable, and this particular expression is kind of the poster child. I'mma go look at Erlang if I want my functional language fix without making my head hurt, thank ye very much.

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Erlang fucks, haskell is the nerd in the corner at the party crying "they don't know about my mathematical purity"

[–] pkill@programming.dev 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Haskell's got better type system tho

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago

OCaml has an equally good type system without being pretentious about it

[–] cabhan@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 11 months ago

I wish this was exaggerated, but it isn't at all. Every time I try to learn Haskell, I end up in some tutorial: "You know how you sometimes need to represent eigenvectors in an n-dimensional plane with isotonically theoretical pulsarfunctions? Haskell types make that easy!"

[–] skyline@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is no way.

[–] umbraroze@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

It's a thing! Sadly it won't rewrite Haskell codebases for you, though.