Python-based monads essay part 2

[Rustom Mody]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:07:53 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > If you want to prove to me that monads are still functional,
> 
> Ultimately, monads are simply the pipelining pattern. It is used
> extensively in Unix shells. (I don't know Microsoft's PowerShell, but it
> used to be called "Monad".)
> 
> > Otherwise, what you're really saying is "we can cheat until we can do
> > I/O", not "we can do I/O in a functional way".
> 
> I guess it's justified as follows: in functional programming, your
> program is a function that produces an output out of its input. IOW:
> 
>     program(input)
>     => output
> 
> Because of lazy evaluation, the program can start before the input is
> prepared and output can be returned gradually before the program
> finishes.

This would be an ok view if 'world' consisted of only stdin/stdout
As it happens it consists of files, filesystems, NICs talking to... uh a
more real and somewhat bigger world

Now we can functionalize all this by making 'the world' as a parameter to our functions.
Greg talks of this as do other writings on functional IO
I personally find talking of 'world' as though its an object in my little
world to be a sleight of hand.

OTOH I dont know any better...