The Haskell community it abuzz over this article by Brian Hurt. His article is an interesting one, because it documents some insightful first-impressions about Haskell.
Undoubtedly, the part that has gotten the most attention is his suggestion that the Haskell community stop using mathematical names (as a default) for our common idioms. To quote:
One thing that does annoy me about Haskell- naming. Say you’ve noticed a common pattern, a lot of data structures are similar to the difference list I described above, in that they have an empty state and the ability to append things onto the end. Now, for various reasons, you want to give this pattern a name using on Haskell’s tools for expressing common idioms as general patterns (type classes, in this case). What name do you give it? I’d be inclined to call it something like “Appendable”. But no, Haskell calls this pattern a “Monoid”. Yep, that’s all a monoid is- something with an empty state and the ability to append things to the end. Well, it’s a little more general than that, but not much. Simon Peyton Jones once commented that the biggest mistake Haskell made was to call them “monads” instead of “warm, fluffy things”. Well, Haskell is exacerbating that mistake. Haskell developers, stop letting the category theorists name things. Please. I beg of you.
I’m a mathematician, so perhaps my opinion on this should be taken with a grain of salt. But to be fair, I came to Haskell years before I had taken any category theory, and back before my abstract algebra was where it is today.
It’s been said elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating: we basically have two choices on this issue.
- We use less technical names, so that we don’t scare off people who are scared of technical names.
- We call it what it is, with the added benefit that people who are familiar with these ideas can come to the language and apply some existing intuition.
Each option picks a preferred audience, where the audience for (2) is undoubtedly in the minority. But is that necessarily a bad thing?
Haskell is a Great Language Experiment. Originating in academia, it has been built out of a vast collection of wildly strange ideas, more or less just to see how well these ideas would work out. We’re watching that experiment unfold today.
Some parts of the experiment are obvious, such as using monads to bring side effects into the type system. Others are less obvious, such as suggesting that we should think about our software in terms of category theory and abstract algebra.
So thus I suggest the following perspective: just as we have become convinced that monads are a better way of modeling side effects, so too may we be convinced that these branches of math provided a good way of thinking about programs. If we do become convinced of this, then it behooves us to stick with this nomenclature and rethink our approach to training programmers. After all, it might be the case that an army of programmers who thinks in these terms will produce better results than army that doesn’t. If so, we should adopt this practice!
Of course, this has the obvious disadvantage of disenfranchising those programmers who won’t or cannot think of their problems in these terms. That’s fine; Haskell doesn’t need to be for everybody, just as not everybody needs to love Java, or Python, or Assembly, or Ada, or whatever.
What’s best is to attract people to Haskell who can like it for what it is, because once we decide we need to change Haskell to suit the needs of the people who don’t like it, then we’re no longer talking about Haskell, but rather some strange derivative language. In principle there’s nothing wrong with that; I’m not married to Haskell — just to the ideas that make it great. After all, at some point a language will come along that takes Haskell’s ideas as a foundation and expands on them in some nontrivial way. When that happens, I’ll convert to the new language, just as I converted to Haskell. It’s not clear to me, though, that renaming everything will bring about this sort of revolution.
Besides, let’s be honest: is it really the names that are tripping people up, or is this just more “monads are like burritos?” Sure, you can look at a monoid and say “aha! if only someone had called this thing appendable, I would have understood it from the beginning.” But is that really true, or is it just an excuse for having a tough time grappling with a genuinely new idea?
Sure, I grant that it’s not very helpful to try to teach monads to people by starting with examples of adjoint functors, talking about the semantics of
join, etc. It’s much more helpful to start by explaining how the idea gets used, and then get into the abstract business of it all (for the people who are so inclined). But this is a problem in how we explain the ideas, not in what we call them.
Indeed, let us not forget that this abstract business does have some advantages. For instance, if one invests the (admittedly serious amount of) time to read a bit about monads and categories, then one finds that it should be obvious that linked lists are monads, since linked lists are really just free monoids, and the free monoid is adjoint to the forgetful functor, so that the composition gives a monad. Technical? Absolutely. But if you can get past that, then there’s a lot of insight one can gain into the underlying nature of what’s going on.
These algebraic and category theoretic foundations have inspired a lot of great ideas in the Haskell community. Renaming everything obfuscates the ideas, and will slow down future developments and unifications. In my experience (and I suspect the experience of many others), the “call it what it is” approach has made it much easier to see the big picture in my programs. Are we really ready to give up the conventions and way of thinking that got us where we are?