Відео

Just to be nitpicky, the wrapper of the type is not a part of the monad. The (in)famous sentence is true: A monad on A is a monoid of the endofunctors of A. This means that the it is a F: A -> A, meaning that both the original object and the end object must belong to the same category. In your examples, you are doing two different operations: - An isomorphism, F: U -> W, where U are all the unwrapped objects and W are the corresponding unwrapped objects. - A monad, G: W -> W, where the monad acts on any wrapped object and returns the same type of wrapped object. Not that it is fundamental to program or anything, as most of the time combining both is the easiest solution (multiple times my functions accept different types for certain arguments and I internally transform those arguments into the type that I actually use in the function, like passing the name of a matplotlib cmap, and then I get the cmap, but also allowing to pass a cmap itself). Another nitpick to make is that in pure functional programming, the "busy logic behind the scenes" cannot affect anything else other than the object being returned. For example, if instead of adding the log to the object you wrote it somewhere else, that also wouldn't be a monad, even if that function would work exactly in the same way, being able to chain it as much as you want.

A monad is a function that takes an object of any type and returns the same type of object. Map and filter are two very understandeable monads. In Pandas, for example, getting rows by index is a monad, as you had a database before, and the function (selecting indices) returns you to another database object (to which you could further apply an index selection).

Title: The Absolute Best Intro Video:🗿

It's a great explanation of complex concept. Divinding work time into CPU and IO time is a realy great concept for understanding this. Now I understand why Node.js is so popuar for web development. Thanks!

I wish loud soundbed musak wasn't considered de rigour everywhere ATM. it really is very distracting not some kind of educational aid.

oh you call it run? I call it apply

1:09 But doesn't ascii use 7 bits for representation ?

i feel like im losing my sanity watching this thats how you know its good

Feel like rust

Why explain without code?

Ok the usefullness of this wasnt making any sense to me until we started using nullable types. Maybe JS wasn't the best langauge to explain these concepts with? The pattern seems to be much more relevant to other languages like C# to me

The best way to learn monads is as always by using them. i use the result pattern which I think is another monad

Or you can log in the function and set the log level like a normal person

please create a video to explain how to convert utf-8 text to 8 bit binary

Is that like gonads?

I don't understand... how is this meant to help us in our battle against the Mechon?

Feel like I've leveled up as a developer after watching this 🙌

This seems ridiculously overcomplicated.

my hobby: spreading lies about functional programming "Monads are just functions which take one argument. They always explain it in a really complicated way."

Heap programming at its peak

Please no music

please remake this using Haskell for the code examples! great monad tute but torture for my eyes parsing the JS :-)

4:23 Way to turn a perfectly readable `n * n` to obfuscated code. I would hate to debug your code. Would've been better to create *separate functions* for stringifying what was done. Something like var n = 5 log(beganwith(x)) log(added(x,1,(y = add(x,1)))) log(squared(y,(z = square(y)))) log(multiplied(z,3,multiply(z,3))) would be far less confusing to read. since it doesn't create additional lines of code in functions that should kept to just one task so that they can be inlined by any compiler that's used instead of an interpreter

Is this related to Aspect Oriented Programming?

So really I’ve been using monads for a long time now. Nice!

If i'm seeing this right, it looks like a technique to bind operations that don't want to know about the all parts of a data structure to only the parts it wants to know about, in a way that's easy to extend both on the supported functions, and the underlying data structure. And then the broader secret work clicked

feels like a glorified version of wrapper pattern, or rebuilding object-oriented design in a function language without using class (new NumberWithLogs(5).add(5).square() ?). the secret work-behind-the-scene sometimes can be confusing either, because hiding the null protections, the function name not indicating it, the later readers must be familiar with the library or they won't know certain behaviours actually happen from the code. Hiding certain behaviours to ease things out - that also sound like what classes are for, and don't get me wrong, same issue also happens in object-oriented languages. We usually need to think a fitting name for things or write good documentations to avoid that. This video kinda ignored such aspect - codes are more for reading. It also results in repeating code, using monads in the way of first example. The code's theme should be about calculations, but reading the final product, it seems more about runWithLogs().

I thought typescript is just an attempt to fake a type system badly over javascript a non functional language. Why the heck are you talking about monads? Theres no monads in javascript lol.

_CAP_ is actually *PAC* "In case of *Partition* you can choose between *Availability* or *Consistency* but not both." *CAPELC* is the full reality: "In case of *Partition* you can choose between *Availability* or *Consistency* but not both. *Else* (when not partitioned), choose between *Latency* and *Consistency* "

Bro, you're a legend. I've tried at least a dozen times before this to learn about monads. Wikipedia, googling, videos... was always left with the feeling that even though I didn't get it, the explanations were all trash. This video is so clear, I immediately understood the concept and how it was useful. And some old examples of monads that still rattled around in the skull suddenly made a lot more sense. Thank you.

Finally understand what Monads is as I already using them in code like std::optional<T>😂

At 8:37, the very first line of getPetNickname calls getCurrentUser. If getCurrentUser returns a User of None, do the other lines in getPetNickname execute as well?

Makes sense. Thank you very much ❤

dude, make more videos! Such high quality stuff 👏

Where you at?

I think maybe in more professional and critical software this could be important, but as a game dev I watch this and think "wow this is very overcomplicated"

This example is shockingly close to Rust.

Seems there are libraries around bringing monads and other FP features to JS but they are NOT good for bringing in real production work with teams for many reasons.

Monads? They hang between molegs.

How would you use this practically in JS?

If the trade off is “duplicate code or use monads” I’m duplicating code every time no question.

Thank you. Please keep these Great videos coming.

your videos are great. thank you.

Anyone here feel this example so complicated for the intro of monads?

Whyd u use typescript 😢

Really good video dude. Thank you

This is absolutely the best explanation video about async I've ever seen. Amazing work!

i watch a lot of videos on monads and they always focus on the generic aspect of the monad wrapper, but really this video nails behavior aspects which is what really matters. you can even write monadic code in C using this examples and still have great value using it.

8:40 Huh? Why couldn't it be just return user?.pet?.nickname

thank u 🤗🤗