[willtim]

You certainly would need a PhD to fully understand Monads from that small JavaScript snippet. The Haskell link you gave gives Phil Wadler's original paper as the first link. It is easy to read, explains everything beautifully and full of many examples. Learn some basic Haskell for no other reason than to read seminal papers such as these. To favour some random JavaScript hacker on the internet and steer others away from the original work is anti-intellectualism.

[dmitriid]

Ah, here comes the condescending tone I've so come to appreciate from the Haskell programmers.

"Go and read", "anti-intellectualism".

[eastWestMath]

Wadler's paper is an excellent piece of exposition that's us at the level of an upper-year undergraduate textbook. There's nothing condescending about referring a professional to a relevant paper in their discipline, but it is troubling when a professional won't even read over a paper.

[dmitriid]

It's troubling when people assume there's only one paper that a professional should read. Or that a professional cannot choose between papers to read. etc.

[KirinDave]

How did anyone imply this? A single free, reputable resource was offered, but many more exist.

[willtim]

You are misquoting me. I said steering others away from the original source of work to an interior source (incomplete at best) is anti-intellectualism.

I do not mean to be condescending, but I feel very strongly about this.

[dmitriid]

In order not to copy-paste, I'll link to my reply in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14890766

[KirinDave]

Wait... you're tone policing haskell users after referring to even the _adaptation_ of functional techniques as a "crime against humanity?"

Please rethink this approach. It is a bad approach. It fails to capture (what I think you) your argument (is) and antagonizes people needlessly. And quite frankly, a lot of people are being VERY nice by not following in the tradition of absolutely burying javascript for its nonsensical primitive type semantics.