Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I believe that efforts using trivial examples to show how complexity can be managed via certain abstractions are doomed to fail.

I've received 5 emails and about 10 tweets from people saying, "I think I understand monoids better because your tutorial sat at the right level of abstraction and overhead for me to get."

So, I think I succeeded for 15 people. Which I am pretty damn happy about. Because whenever I write one of these I pretty much assume everyone will misread, misunderstand, or ignore 3/4 of my post. It's just my experience.

People who call the monoid abstraction "confusing" and "complexity for its own sake"... I just have to assume these people can't handle the discomfort of learning new concepts anymore and write them off as unreachable. It's not like I owe them anything. Because I'm pretty sure it's actually not confusing at all, it's just a different perspective.

The real irony is that for awhile I was deep in the OO and Ruby culture and said a lot of these same things. You can find them online if you know where to look. So I understand where these people are coming from and know that without their cooperation, I cannot explain anything at all.



FWIW, you can count me in. I've understood monoids better thanks to your article.

My comment was not a jab at your article, but a comment on how hard it is to find the proper abstraction level.

And that I fully understand people who'd say it is making things more complex for its own sake, and I'm not sure it necessarily is because they don't want to learn.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: