Talk:Monad (functional programming): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Line 199:
 
This article reads as an informal guide for programmers, contrary to [[WP:NOTAGUIDE]]. Almost half of all sources are Internet postings, conference talks, and Haskell wiki pages and many, not limited to these types, are strongly opinionated or tutorial; following these, the text comes across as [[WP:OR]] outside a few more encyclopedic sections like History. Normative statements about usage should be contextualized as proper to the norms of functional programming, where they can be supported as such, and otherwise avoided as editorial. Lengthy segments are motivated by only appeals to naturalness, enumerations of supposed advantages, or assertions about what 'many programmers prefer', if at all, and sourced only to guides and documentation, if at all. In my view, major cuts and rewrites are required. Looking at how the subject is handled in other languages, I can recommend [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monade_(Informatik) the German article] as being a fraction of the length and proceeding from definitions to context to a focused set of examples. [[User:Terminator 2 really happened|Terminator 2 really happened]] ([[User talk:Terminator 2 really happened|talk]]) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
 
:@[[User:Terminator 2 really happened|Terminator 2 really happened]]: I worked on this article a while back, and while I don't really plan to much more, I mostly agree with you. I think the one thing that keeps me checking back in is that I never redid the Continuation monad section. And it bugs me for some reason ([[call/cc]] is honestly still a riddle I haven't entirely wrapped my head around).
:If you're ready to prune the article, especially to harmonize with another wiki, I say go for it. My only two thoughts :
:* I think the monad concept itself is difficult enough that it warrants some motivation and exposition. In other words, maybe [[WP:NOTAGUIDE]] should be done with a chisel instead of a sledgehammer on this one. I know my edits were still too conversational in retrospect, but for example, it might still be helpful if sections are allowed to build on each other.
:* Referring to the Haskell wiki pages is definitely less than ideal, but the talk page already saw a lot of back-and-forth on moving away from Haskell more. I think the core issue is that while we can do examples in other languages, we don't have a better idiom than Haskell-ish terms and pseudocode for explaining the actual concepts. A lot of the historical record out there on using monads is based in Haskell too. Even if it's still Haskell-centric, another harder reference (like a book) might be a good first step. At least that gets us away from citing Haskell's community wiki.
:Like I said, I can't dedicate much time to this article going forward, but if you think I can help somehow, feel free to ping me. -- [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)