Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

November 22, 2014

Barbie on Monads

Posted by Tom Leinster

Barbie states the definition of monad

Sadly, this is not real.

Posted at November 22, 2014 7:44 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:

3 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Barbie on Monads

that quote was lifted from A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages written by James Iry in 2009.

1990 - A committee formed by Simon Peyton-Jones, Paul Hudak, Philip Wadler, Ashton Kutcher, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals creates Haskell, a pure, non-strict, functional language. Haskell gets some resistance due to the complexity of using monads to control side effects. Wadler tries to appease critics by explaining that “a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what’s the problem?”

Posted by: RodMcGuire on November 23, 2014 3:12 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Barbie on Monads

Aha, thanks!

Posted by: Tom Leinster on November 23, 2014 12:26 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Barbie on Monads

I want to see Univalent Foundations Barbie, fearlessly forging a new paths for mathematics and computer science alike.

Posted by: David Roberts on November 24, 2014 3:38 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment