| Quoted from Bartosz Milewski's 'Category Theory for Programmers chapter 20: Let me set the record straight: The whole mysticism around the monad is the result of a misunderstanding. The monad is a very simple concept. It’s the diversity of applications of the monad that causes the confusion.
As part of research for this post I looked up duct tape (a.k.a., duck tape) and its applications. Here’s a little sample of things that you can do with it: - sealing ducts - fixing CO2 scrubbers on board Apollo 13 - wart treatment - fixing Apple’s iPhone 4 dropped call issue - making a prom dress - building a suspension bridge Now imagine that you didn’t know what duct tape was and you were trying to figure it out based on this list. Good luck!
So I’d like to add one more item to the collection of “the monad is like…” clichés: The monad is like duct tape. Its applications are widely diverse, but its principle is very simple: it glues things together. More precisely, it composes things. === Also would like to recommand:
Functors and Monads For People Who Have Read Too Many "Tutorials"
http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2958 I got a feeling that Monad has no good metaphor to real life objects. Trying to make up an analogy just makes things worse. |