[Quekid5]

Absolutely, a practical understanding is enough. It also suffices for monads, monad transformers, etc.

> Every time that functional programming patterns get discussed, though, there is a mad rush by functional programmers to impress upon everyone just how complicated they are.

I... haven't observed this behavior personally. FWIW, I don't think that saying (for example)

> Hey, we can actually define what "|" and "(_,_)" means in a mathematical way

detracts in any way from a practical understanding. Can you elaborate on why you think it's detrimental? (I understand that it can come off as a little bit smug, but beyond that... meh?)

[rectang]

Asserting that an article is "sprinkled with claims that go a bit too far" calls into question what the reader may have learned. It does not build upon the article, like a popularizer would, but first tears it down.

Then, to restore the reader's sense of mastery over the material, it's proposed that they grok a significantly more esoteric perspective.

[Quekid5]

I'm just trying to understand... is your beef here with the particular choice of verbiage?

(FWIW, I think it's absolutely right to call into question what the reader may have learned if an article is misleading. We can argue about wording, etc., but accuracy is important, I feel. Now, Lies-to-Children[0] certainly have their place, but they must be fundamentally accurate even if simplified.)

[0] I think I first heard of this concept in the Science of Discworld books...?