Fascinating excursion in monads history

Comments

[this is good]
Are you trying to communicate or trying to obfuscate?
A primary rule of communication is that you give the reader (or audience) the chance to interpret. Why are you hiding here behind both terminiology and inscrutable history? What are you afraid of?
This story is very interesting for every functional programmer that structures his programs with monads. For that people who does not write programs in Haskell-like language or does not use denotational semantics that information will be probably uninteresting and they may just skip it.

And I'd like to promote Moggi's papers among grunt programmers -- his works are mostly unknown to them.


[this is good]

My reaction to your post was that there is something there and I would love to hear what it is. What do you think would happen if programmers broadened their audiences instead of keeping audiences as narrow as possible? What do you think would happen if programmers considered how they could communicate with either people who have solutions and ideas that might be useful to programmers, or with other programmers who might need more solutions?

Ingrown communication digs holes deeper, but does not bring in solutions or problem solvers into your realm.

Could you - like a historian, or a writer, or a philosopher - step back and state clearly why you have something important here? I suspect you might. But it is in a tightly taped up box.

thanks

By the way, my interest is from computational linguistics.
All this computational monadology and all that may be abstracted from it in any way makes no sense for commonality, but every scientist (especially mathematician) considered it and similar tools trivial, so post indeed targeted to narrow (relatively) audience (IT people that writes programs and interested in functional programming).

Perhaps this is my fault that reader doesn't realize it all while reading post title, but titleclearly states that story will be about monads (obviously special term) -- is it not enough to notify about specialized audience?

Fascination in this excursion grows from the fact that usual things have unexpectedly long and rich history, learning from that people may found important knowledge and new points of views.

[this is good]

Right. People learn from histories, from unexpected applications, from generalizing outside their specialties, from turning mechanisms into fascinations.

Your title was clearly specialist. What is fascinating, however, may not be.

thanks for clarifying.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

About Me

vagston
United States

Archives