Steep learning curve and math terminology. It’s not called mappable or container, it’s called functor. It’s not called multimappable, it’s called applicable. It’s not called sequenceable, it’s called monad. It’s not called sequence stack or effect stack, it’s called monad transformer stack. This scares folks no end. (Elm did not make this mistake.)
God damn I wish we could send you back in time to when whatever idiot came up with monad etc. so you could slap some sense into them!
To be fair, it’s not my insight there, it’s Evan Czaplicki’s.
I should have added lenses. Just when you think you’ve mastered everything because you finally understand what a zygohistomorphic prepromorphism is (but also why your mentor told you that it wasn’t important), along comes the next mathematical abstraction, and that’s perfectly normal for haskell, but this one comes with 200 new operators to memorise and it feels like you were getting to grips with the Greek alphabet when suddenly it would be really helpful if you could also read Chinese characters.
God damn I wish we could send you back in time to when whatever idiot came up with monad etc. so you could slap some sense into them!
To be fair, it’s not my insight there, it’s Evan Czaplicki’s.
I should have added lenses. Just when you think you’ve mastered everything because you finally understand what a zygohistomorphic prepromorphism is (but also why your mentor told you that it wasn’t important), along comes the next mathematical abstraction, and that’s perfectly normal for haskell, but this one comes with 200 new operators to memorise and it feels like you were getting to grips with the Greek alphabet when suddenly it would be really helpful if you could also read Chinese characters.
A lot of these operators are things like
+=and-=, though, which should not be too hard to remember if you are familiar with C-flavored languages.