[hurril]

You both have good points. But there is monads the mathematical and programmatic concept, and there is also something a little bit handwavy in how these things are incorporated into an application architecture. The latter is what is being used on the one hand in comparison to MVC, etc, on the other.

I.e.: a monadic architecture in Haskell is good, but one in Java is going to suck. A sort of half-way point is in The Elm Architecture, which is a sort of deconstructed IO monad.

(Writing this as someone with decades of experience in writing monadic architectures.)

[yakshaving_jgt]

What does a “monadic architecture” look like? I’ve been writing web applications in Haskell for the past decade and all of them are MVC.

[hurril]

I am going to interpret your question as one asked in good spirit.

I like this book: https://www.manning.com/books/functional-design-and-architec...

[frumplestlatz]

I don’t really understand what a “monadic architecture” is supposed to mean.

Haskell’s `Monad` type class is hardly the only possible encoding of a monad. They’re just a simple mathematical construction with useful properties, and — like functors and applicative functors — they emerge everywhere.

[hurril]

See, I don't think you don't really understand my point. I said this elsewhere: I have been programming Scala and Haskell for more than 15 years, which I am sure you have as well. This is not ment as a proof of my point as that would be arguing form authority. This is not my intention. But there are more things at play here.

What I think you are doing is: well quantum mechanics is just simple mathematical construction and some artithmetic.

Is it really? Is it _just_ that?