What is a monad? (Design Pattern)

[@AByteofCode]

Hiya! It turns out that what is described in this video is the Functor and not the Monad. The difference between these two is quite minor so I'll leave it here. A monad is just a functor which has some extra property within the bind method. Functions being passed in bind calls must have as their return types an instance of the monad being used. The bind method of a monad would then need to "unwrap" that value.

[@wanderingthewastes6159]

Wait, so I’m using a monad everytime I call .unwrap() in Rust?

[@AByteofCode]

​@@wanderingthewastes6159 I would need to look into it but from the little I know, unwrap is a method of an Option type, which I believe is a monad. You would need to ask someone who knows more about rust than me, I've only seen like 2-3 No Boilerplate videos.

[@felixnderitu1455]

Hey can you do a full Video about Design patterns ?

[@mskiptr]

No, no, no! What you described here *are* properties of a typical _monad_ (barring some technicalities). _Functors_ are things you can write a _map_ function for, such as _lists_ (applies the function to every element inside), but also _maybe_ (apply the function if there is something inside).

[@nxone9903]

a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors

[@falkelh]

I already know what a monad is: it's that thing that my annoying friend who's just learned Haskell won't stop talking about

[@AByteofCode]

Sounds about right :)

[@andrasfogarasi5014]

A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. I don't know what people don't get about that.

[@AByteofCode]

Hehe... Just wait a few weeks and I'll have a full video about that sentence (and all the CT necessary to understand it)

[@oscareriksson9414]

Yes. That is thing I understand.. endofunkting easy! 😁

[@Brunoenribeiro]

"bart, say the line!"

[@AByteofCode]

@@Brunoenribeiro im tempted to ask stemg for his permission to use that clip in a video lmao

[@arsnakehert]

@@AByteofCode Subscribed to wait for it lol

[@crabbyboi9127]

I'm a big fan of the "fireship style" of videos and it's great to see more people creating high quality content like this

[@AByteofCode]

It's about time the style leaves web development and talks about other stuff :)

[@yt-1337]

@@AByteofCode exactly

[@4xmo]

why is that in quotes lol

[@dailyfunnytv358]

@@4xmo because he's not the creator

[@Yazan_Majdalawi]

This channel is much better at this "style" than fireship, this one is much clearer, fireship's vids are a mess

[@tylerscott9277]

This 2 minute video is a better explanation of monads than some hour long lecture I've watched. Really good stuff!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words! Honestly those lectures are good but too long to focus on so they end up not being good. Lectures are also generally performed in front of a group of students with assumed knowledge basics. I wrote this video with no pre-requisites other than knowing a tiny bit of programming.

[@samuelwaller4924]

You may be very small now, but with this quality of content you will definitely be big one day!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words and optimism!

[@9paradox]

i approve this comment.

[@hydralisk98]

I approve this sentiment. The video content is high quality already and I support such efforts much. I can't wait to see what is next from "A Byte of Code", especially as a hobby programmer interested much in both past and future tech advances.

[@AByteofCode]

@@hydralisk98 Ever heard of JSF*ck? :p

[@hydralisk98]

@@AByteofCode You mean the JS implementation of Brainf*ck? Not the JS edition before this video but yes I am aware of it. I do am aware of much as far as my curiosity lead me to, both in esoteric prog langs and more serious ones like Common Lisp, C# and even exploring F#/F*. Hopefully as I dive into the history of web tech (going before even SGML & IBM's GML), we may collaborate on advanced programming functional structures soon. ^*^//

[@tsyf1]

Fireship's influence shows. You're also just as talented at explaining complex things in a short time.

[@AByteofCode]

I started this channel in part to further the Fireship style to other realms of programming, so that is actually a great compliment, thank you!

[@DavidSimonTetruashvili]

And it's a great style. Imitating it, I think, will only bring good things as it mutates through creators picking it up. Also, refreshing to see this style without the usual inside jokes fireship includes in his fast-pace videos which can sometimes be misconstrued as facts...

[@AByteofCode]

@@DavidSimonTetruashvili I agree fireship has an amazing way of showcasing content and that its a good place to start out from and develop one's own style off of it. Was expecting to have more time to adapt but youtube's algorithm did not agree. I watch a lot of fireship but can't think of any of these inside jokes off the top of my head, would you have an example or two by any chance?

[@tsyf1]

@@DavidSimonTetruashvili I was thinking the same thing. It'll be very interesting watching this style evolve.

[@miquelvazquez4544]

@@AByteofCode he usually uses irony! stuff along the lines (off the top of my head, not exact quote) of: "we all love getting a new framework every month"

[@gilmoretj]

This has to be the best explanation of Monads I have found out of all the many, many, many videos I have watched, and definitely the most productive 2 minutes and 30 second - highly recommended. I suspect one of the major difficulties with explaining the concept are the different mindsets of the audience from the instructor. The vast majority of instructors will be from a declarative/Functional Programming background where solutions are defined in terms of what needs to be done. The audience will largely comprise developers from an imperative OOP/Procedural background where solutions are formed by defining the steps required to resolve the problem. Having an explanation in terms of how the monad resolves a problem by absorbing some of the steps is really easy to understand. The last 60 seconds of this video really hits that message home, but I would not go as far as to suggest watching the video in reverse.

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you!! The second paragraph is definitively key to what made this video work. When I made it, my understanding of functional programming was pretty mediocre, making it no more than an imperative programmer trying to explain monads to other imperative programmers. However I never actually realized what I had done until this comment, so thanks for pointing it out :)

[@swankitydankity297]

I commend you for having so clearly and accessibly explained a notoriously difficult topic. I finally feel like I actually understand what these are now. Thanks!

[@AByteofCode]

Ayo glad to help!

[@robinmoussu]

That’s probably the best concise explanation of monad I’ve read so far!

[@AByteofCode]

I'm happy to hear that!

[@benjaminshu4018]

Great video±! You have enlightened my vision on computer science by finally explaining to me what a monad is dude.

[@AByteofCode]

lmao

[@polycode2688]

These videos are well made, keep making them!

[@AByteofCode]

Glad you like them, I definitively will continue!

[@DanielRamBeats]

There have been many attempts to explain monads and many have failed but your example makes it extremely clear, thank you

[@AByteofCode]

I'm happy to help :)

[@AByteofCode]

What can I do to make my future videos better? Any feedback (even negative) is much appreciated!

[@brian-bed]

remember to pin your comments so i can see then at the top :)

[@AByteofCode]

@@brian-bed oh right yeah lol ty for pointing that out

[@sharbelokzan9673]

I still don't understand monads 100%, But this video is where I can say I got the closest to understand them. And the most surprising thing is the video length! I have watched, before this, a lot of other videos about monads, and some of them were really long and thorough, but I consider this one is the best so far. I can't be sure whether it's the example you gave or the fact that I'm watching this after watching many similar videos, but this is defiantly QUALITY CONTENT, short, concise, holistic and well-narrate. Thankyou very much

[@AByteofCode]

This brings a smile to my face :) If you don't plan on going into functional programming, just think of monads as a smart box that does stuff to its contents for you. (Its more than that but the distinction doesn't matter outside of FP)

[@sharbelokzan9673]

@@AByteofCode tnx!, yup I think the smart box analogy do it for me now

[@AByteofCode]

@@sharbelokzan9673 Ayy that's good to hear! Was considering using that analogy for the video itself but decided to avoid using metaphors

[@taragnor]

Yeah this is the most concise explanation of a monad I've seen and in a way that a regular programmer would understand.

[@tantalus_complex]

​@@AByteofCode Question for you. I see the Maybe monad example in this video as a way of relocating many examples of a problematic procedural step ("procedural" in the normal English sense) down to a single isolated location. As a result, common problems stemming from that step (in this case, problems with function calls and property accessors) can be handled in common. I have an example which I think fits this pattern, and therefore might be a monad. Is there a term for a monad which relocates side effects, like state updates/assignment or DOM renders, in much the same way that you relocate function calls and property accessors?

[@sanketower]

The best Monad explanation I've seen so far.

[@AByteofCode]

Glad to hear that!!!

[@leshommesdupilly]

Wow, that was a very clear explanation ! Now I know how useful monads are. Unfortunately, I already forgot what they are.

[@uselessDev]

Most clear and concise explanation of monads that I've seen - amazing stuff

[@thorodinson3929]

To the point, concise and clear explanation. Just what a developer needs.

[@charleshughes1417]

This is the most comprehensible explanation of monads I've come across. Thanks.

[@AByteofCode]

That is very nice to hear :) You're welcome!

[@RamiGB]

Being a functor or a monad doesn't matter you've done a brilliant video in a beautiful way that would hopefully inspire newer developers to be better, respect to you

[@AByteofCode]

Reading this gives me the happy :) Thank you for the kind words!

[@ElliottParkinson]

Insane quality of content for a channel so small. You've earned my subscription

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed this video that was uploaded to a 30 sub channel :)

[@babyboie20]

Holy crap, this is super useful and a way of thinking that I haven’t thought of before. Nice work!

[@AByteofCode]

Glad I could be helpful! Thanks for the kind words :)

[@txzk26]

This is the most clear and intuitive explanation of monad I ever had. Thanks

[@sunofabeach9424]

I love how monads are explained with such example that fights JS absurdity

[@hello-world1]

what is wrong with JS? In fact, it is in JS that this problem can be solved with using optional chaining which keep the code readable and debuggable at the same time.

[@sunofabeach9424]

@@hello-world1 chaining is doable in every language that supports OOP. And don't get me started with JS wrongs...

[@hello-world1]

@@sunofabeach9424 not chaining, optional chaining meaning that if you put .. then the program won't throw if the prop can't be accessed. ok get started let's hear.

[@sunofabeach9424]

​@@hello-world1 ah, I checked what this "?." does. The one thing it can do is just short-circ evaluation. While it is useful at times, it does not let you bind a callback function or manipulate the object this callback is attached to. It is not nearly as powerful as a monad. It's funny that this "?." serves one purpose - to make null-checks more compact, while nulls shouldn't be a thing in the first place

[@SirSidi]

I love you. I was referred to a 12 mins video about monads, I watched all of it and I swear I had no idea what it was talking about. I got the clear idea of what monads are in 2 short minutes.

[@AByteofCode]

Glad to hear that!

[@erin1569]

I didn't expect such quality from a ~350 sub channel The sound got much better compared to older videos (I think you got a little bit more confident) I'll make sure to share your channel with some of my friends to help you grow :)

[@AByteofCode]

Hehe and I had 30 subs when I posted that video :) Also thanks for the kind words and help, I appreciate it!

[@proloycodes]

almost 3k subs in just 4 days, so yeah this channel is gonna blow up

[@AByteofCode]

​@@proloycodes That would be a certified pog moment :) If my current growth rate continues for a week I'll be at 10k. In any case, I have a couple of videos planned out that I suspect might check the same boxes as monads do so that might be helpful too. As someone who was hoping for 100 subs by the end of the summer, all of this is absolutely insane!

[@torarinvik4920]

Hands down the best explanation of Monads I have seen on youtube.

[@AByteofCode]

Ty for the kind words!

[@torarinvik4920]

@@AByteofCode my pleasure!

[@Jordan4Ibanez]

You're a gem, my friend. Keep up the great work!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@brqnet]

I am glad that I found this channel, I love to learn something new like algorithms and complex information rather than seeing basic stuff and useless tutorials,. Keep it up man

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words :)

[@TheonlyNonlethalninja]

Much has improved from the last video! Personally I think mellow background music would help relieve any pauses and there's a rlly quiet but somewhat noticeable static noise when you're talking

[@AByteofCode]

Ty! Audio is a sharp corner I never seem to get right but someday...

[@TheonlyNonlethalninja]

@@AByteofCode it is hard personally I just upgraded to the blue yeti x it's $170 but has its own processing software and it's a night and day difference if you watch my C video compared to wifi

[@AByteofCode]

@@TheonlyNonlethalninja Oh lol I have a blue yeti, i should probably look up how to make it do better audio

[@TheonlyNonlethalninja]

@@AByteofCode oh then something is off lol should be an easy fix if you're using the blue yeti software while recording

[@AByteofCode]

@@TheonlyNonlethalninja That would seem to be the part I'm missing! I'll look into getting the blue yeti software I was not aware existed.

[@flippert0]

Whoa, sifted through a lot of Haskell literature and was none the wiser. Thanks for the succinct explanation.

[@AByteofCode]

Glad it was helpful!

[@noodle-eater]

This is interesting first time hearing about monad, pretty interesting to try

[@AByteofCode]

Good luck with that! I'm glad I saved someone from spending 12 hours watching random youtube videos trying to understand lol

[@CyperN077]

I absolutely love that your video is very readable. A lot of content creators make content that's unwatchable unless you're a freakin' eagle.

[@AByteofCode]

The benefit of spending a whole month on a single video :)

[@Jebusankel]

Doesn't a Monad also need a flatmap to collapse your nested Maybes down to one level?

[@AByteofCode]

Usually, in list monads, the bind method is called flatMap. If you're planning on nesting Maybes than you could change the "extra logic" to take care of it. Having a flatMap isn't required so I omitted it to not overcomplicate anything

[@mskiptr]

Well, you can already do that with just bind: flatten : Monad m => m (m a) -> m a flatten x = bind x id -- This is the type of bind I assumed here: -- bind : Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b id : a -> a id x = x

[@AByteofCode]

@@mskiptr You have a problem. You try explaining it with haskell. Now you have two problems :p I think this guy does javascript and is used to the monadic "bind" for lists being called flatMap, whereas the functorial "bind" for lists is just map.

[@mskiptr]

lol alright, I'll try to explain it in JavaScript. If you have an _Array_ of _Arrays,_ you can flatten it to just one level with only a clever use of bind (which is the same as flatMap in this case) - no need for a special un-nesting function: [[0,1],[2,3]].flatMap(x => x) = [0,1,2,3] And it works the exact same way with _Maybe,_ as well as with anything else that properly implements its bind function.

[@nonadqs]

Yes! This guy described a functor, flatMap would usually just be ".bind(x => x)", but it always return a new instance of the value instead just returning the function. You can think of a Functor as anything that implements ".map", like arrays, and monads are anything that implement flatMap. The Maybe interface here isn't powerful enough for implementing flatMap (at least not the functional one, you can do a unsafe trick with the value property).

[@hannaandersson4476]

The best explanation I've seen so far, yet by far the shortest too. Great work!

[@nkiett3805]

A star is born! Great content mate, the quality, time, clarity, visualizing are just so right. I rarely subscribe after watching a few vids (but given that you only have 4 at the moment 😉), but you got my sub. Keep up the awesome work mate!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words! I'll try my best lol

[@jeremiahreilly9739]

Thank you. I still don't understand monads, but this is the very first video which gives me hope that I might understand monads one day.

[@AByteofCode]

You can do it :)

[@carlospedroza2604]

Loving all your videos! I'd love more about functional programming!

[@AByteofCode]

omg ty! I have a few other FP videos planned so stay tuned for those :D

[@champion3176]

You are an excellent instructor. I will stick with you.

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you!

[@o_enamuel]

0:02 5x5 = 15

[@AByteofCode]

I really messed up something that simple lmfaoo Great catch tho!

[@redsunschan5321]

This video is more like a text book to teach how to make people subscribe in 2.5mins Informative, clear, interactive expression Instant subscribed

[@AByteofCode]

This comment is music to my ears! And considering the view to sub conversion rate I think you're right :)

[@rchaykovskiy]

0:38 Usually you wouldn‘t do it that way, you used nested if-statements which is ugly, instead use unnested guard-clauses : if (userObject == null) return null; let userFriends = userObject.friends if (userFriends == null) return null; let firstFriend = userFriends.first() if (firstFriend == null) return null; Instead of returning null you can also throw or if we‘re talking about WebAPI then return a JSON object containing error message or something like that

[@AByteofCode]

Shhhhh totally wasn't taking the worst way to do something to prove a point lmao. I'd thought of putting it like that and honestly if you don't have monads that's a pretty good way of doing it.

[@daleryanaldover6545]

your content is fresh and I don't see this type of content anywhere else, subbed!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words and the sub! I'll try my best to keep the content going :)

[@PavltheRobot]

Very valuable tutorial, concise and clear.

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@ky3ow]

Actually the most understandable explanation and nearly the fastest, didn't expect that from such small channel, keep it up)

[@AByteofCode]

Fun fact I had 30 subs when I posted that video :) Thanks for the kind words, I'll definitively keep it up!

[@randomguy8647]

You're very underrated

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@proloycodes]

agree

[@Euquila]

After years of visiting this topic, I finally get it. Thanks!

[@AByteofCode]

Glad it helped! :)

[@arisweedler4703]

This is so incredible. So simple understandable and clear. Well done!!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words :)

[@badmanjones179]

this video is so good that im pissed. this concept is literally so simple and yet all the "explanations" existing online are like "hey buddy youre gonna need a computer philosophy degree for this" and then explain nothing. but like this + your clarifying comment make crystal clear sense. im so pissed. great work

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you!! The way I see it, monads are SO simple that the phd nerds think that if you don't understand, you're an idiot and so they use complicated examples. Another common pitfall is the whole "explain it in haskell" thing, where if you can understand haskell, you probably know monads already.

[@muhammademirsyah8037]

Wow the quality of this content is just unbelievable, keep it going

[@AByteofCode]

That is music to my ears! Thanks for the kind words!

[@nomoredarts8918]

In 2 minutes you explain concept that everyone else can't explain in 20 minutes or more!

[@hpph1744]

Best explaining Monad ever.

[@AByteofCode]

:) Thanks for the kind words!

[@5cover]

God-tier explanation, extremely concise and easy to understand. Thank you!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!!

[@possumkeys]

Wow, such a short video but better than the 10 to 14 minute videos I've watched. Well done.

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you!

[@69k_gold]

Very short and sweet explanation! I like how you explained concisely the reason to use monads and how they basically work

[@AByteofCode]

Glad it was helpful!

[@YashKumar-it5fr]

first channel that i subscried after only wathing one video . Amazing content.

[@AByteofCode]

Ayyyy glad to hear that and thanks for the kind words!

[@anandpbgupta]

This is best explanation ever I got about Monad or Functor for that matter!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@3_14pie]

After watching this video again after months and others of countless explanations + category theory, I think I'm finally beginning to get it

[@AByteofCode]

Glad to hear that!

[@DiamondSaberYT]

That’s basically Optional in Java. Love it! :D Nice explanation

[@darwinschuppan8624]

Not even 3 minutes, straight to the point and had me saying "oooohhhhh, no f*cking way it was this simple" at the end. 10/10 video

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@rebeccakeller4666]

Amazing. Thank you for explaining, so simply and concisely, what many many other videos and blogs have failed to get into my head

[@AByteofCode]

:) I am very happy to have been able to help!

[@ChocolateMilkCultLeader]

Amazing content. Will share this with my NL audience. I'm sure you will blow up

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you my man!

[@eboubaker3722]

Finallyyy i understood it, computerphile video was complicated for me, your small example was really easy to understand

[@AByteofCode]

The computerphile video was the first one I saw while researching the topic. I'm gonna go rewatch it see if it makes more sense now. It's a shame that video appears first under the search term monad when all it does is complicate things

[@a8lg6p]

This is the first explanation I've heard that makes sense.

[@AByteofCode]

:)

[@aidenlilley1319]

This is the best explanation I have ever heard thank you

[@AByteofCode]

Your welcome and thanks for the kind words!

[@Dht1kna]

Finally understood why I would want a monad

[@MightyElemental]

I studied haskell during my computer science degree, but this is the first time I've actually understood what a monad is.

[@sophieAutumnMay]

Very good video; all killer, no filler.

[@AByteofCode]

Hehe that's the goal! Thanks for the kind words :)

[@asimssheikh]

Wow. Finally understood this concept. You have talent. Keep going.

[@AByteofCode]

Glad to hear that :)

[@rituchandra6325]

Such a simple and precise explanation... wow, 100% immediate sub, please keep up the nice work!

[@AByteofCode]

Will do! Glad you enjoyed :)

[@johnphillips4659]

Very cool, much impressed! Glad to have found your channel.

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you! I'm also glad you found my channel :)

[@thanatosor]

I would prefer how F# or ML way to explain this as “function composition”, for chaining functions together in a correct types order like a factory. Just that simple. In Rust, it use Option so most of time you need to unwrap, but it also can help compose functions with “.” Operator. Which is very convenient and less confusing to people.

[@AByteofCode]

I think for OOP users, the dot operator would be quite confusing. There are many ways to explain and the idea of function composition is a pretty good alternative, I mean, I was thinking of using that for this video but thought the pipeline idea would be more intuitive for my target audience of OOP devs

[@thanatosor]

@@AByteofCode would be great if you gather all those languages and compare them in doing this feature. Fsharp, Ocaml, Haskell, Rust, Ruby, even JS … ha ha

[@AByteofCode]

@@thanatosor Hmm. Not sure what point we'd be trying to prove there. Monads, outside of complex stuff like Promises, aren't really suitable for anything OOP. I just used javascript in this video because my focus was on people just knowing what the word meant and using a language which actually uses monads would have added too much obscurity to be understandable

[@thanatosor]

@@AByteofCode to my latest comment, it’s just my idea, since I tend to make the same thing in different languages. Nothing more to prove I guess. Not a big fan of JS but I admit that it’s everywhere now.

[@AByteofCode]

@@thanatosor Yeah I'm not a big fan of JS (python supremacy) just forced into using it by circumstance (and in videos because everyone knows it so nothing to explain). I guess it could be interesting to have a repertoire of what certain patterns look like in different languages, you're right.

[@massimo8408]

Wow, I have been developing for 7 years, and I did not know about this, very cool!

[@AByteofCode]

Learn something every day!

[@amerjabar7825]

A really great video! I hope your success as a KZbinr comes soon.

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the optimism!

[@pro100tom]

Thank you very much for the explanation. I've got a question. At 1:20 should it return "Maybe: with a null value instead of "this"?

[@AByteofCode]

That would also work, but in functional programming, the only requirement is not modifying existing data, so returning the current instance of the monad complies with the rules of FP. When "return this" appears, you already know "this" contains a null.

[@commissarsydian4125]

Dude, that was amazing. I would only recommend saving for a better audio setup but I trust that is a long term goal.

[@AByteofCode]

A better audio setup is more of a short term goal :) I literally just got monetized a few minutes ago and all of the revenue from that is gonna be going towards improving audio quality, until people stop complaining about it xD

[@wojciechwilimowski985]

I've spent a few hours reading Mark Seemann's blog to first understand the concept, turns out I could have just watched a 3 minute youtube video instead 😂 Excellent

[@AByteofCode]

:D

[@leonardobagi9353]

Now yes, a decent quality video. Keep up the good work man!

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks, will do!

[@kieronkoh4230]

Bro u gonna be big one day. Can't wait for more of such videos

[@AByteofCode]

That would be very cool. If you have any specific topics you'd be interested in, don't hesitate to tell me!

[@vicnicius2009]

That video is awesome, congrats for the great content!

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you for the kind words!

[@lilshoe1000]

So excited to see what comes next with ur channel, keep up the great work :)

[@AByteofCode]

What an interesting coincidence, I'm also excited to see what comes next!

[@glenospace]

Pretty great explanation. Thanks. Would love the video to be longer with more examples.

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you!! I have a monad video planned about the category theory definition and a massive functional programming one which'll mention a multitude of monads. But considering the success of the topic, I could definitively see myself make a dedicated video about a ton of different monad types.

[@SrIgort]

Please continue posting these "How do X work/What is X", it's very interesting! :D

[@AByteofCode]

Will absolutely do! Any specific X's you'd wanna hear about?

[@samgarg5228]

So much info in ~3 minutes, great 🔥

[@AByteofCode]

Eyyyy :D

[@Ben-cq4db]

Subscribed at 12.7k! See you at a million in just a bit.

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@th34lch3m1st]

Devastating synthesis, straight to the point. Subscribed.

[@AByteofCode]

Hearing that gives me the happy :)

[@Sam-pn6gb]

Next big programming channel 💪

[@AByteofCode]

:D That'd be cool ngl

[@cccccc864]

Great video. Easy to follow with beautiful graphics. Thanks. :)

[@AByteofCode]

Thanks for the kind words :) Glad you enjoyed!

[@thatsalot3577]

Finally an actual explanation of a monad.

[@AByteofCode]

The ironic thing is the video is technically inaccurate, it describes the Endofunctor. For it to be a Monad, the function passed into .bind would need to return an instance of the Monad in question. Although, if you're not a functional programmer, the difference doesn't really matter and since noone knows the nuance, you can still use endofunctors and claim it to be a monad :p

[@thatsalot3577]

@@AByteofCode nah I really didn't know much about monads I'm just a simple webdev who makes games in part time But that pattern looked much familiar to promises

[@AByteofCode]

​@@thatsalot3577 Turns out Javascript promises ARE monads! They were designed like that I believe.

[@ExylonBotOfficial]

This is the best explanation ever

[@AByteofCode]

Aww thank you!

[@streetchronicles5693]

strong, powerful, simple, great video

[@AByteofCode]

Thank you!

[@loctite417]

Love that this video isnt a 2 second video saying "a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors" and actually explains the concept in a practical way

[@AByteofCode]

I love that video "what is a monad" where its just a robot reading all the different dictionary definitions and none of them make any sense whatsoever (even talking about non programming uses of monad)

[@willd4686]

Can the return value of the function passed to bind be a different type than the original value?

[@AByteofCode]

As far as I know, of course! What matters is the type of the box, not its contents :) Some hardcore functional programming fanatics might disagree but do what you see fit with the patterns you have!

[@willd4686]

@@AByteofCode That makes sense, thanks for the video. Its really helped my understanding

[@avi12]

You just described Promises without using the word Promise Nicely done

[@AByteofCode]

:) Hehe true, Promises are Monads

[@jonathanlalande3090]

Really good explanation for a 2:30 minutes video!

[@AByteofCode]

Glad to hear that! (Or is it a good explanation _because_ its 2:30 long and thus without bloat?)

[@DreySF]

I can only support what others are saying. Good content. You have my sub 😁. I love the fireship style and target audience.

[@AByteofCode]

Ty :D I'm glad you enjoy!

[@noelgomile3675]

In your JavaScript example, why didn't you make use of the null aware operator to safely access potentially null properties?

[@AByteofCode]

I put the code in javascript since its very readable even to non javascript programmers, but you are right in that the null safety operator is better for this specific use case :)

[@MatteoAntonyMistretta]

Good explanation, although wouldn't this particular use case be solved by just wrapping the whole code block in a try-catch statement?

[@AByteofCode]

Lol, Spoken like a true non FP dev! I mean yes, that would do the trick. Personally, I like to avoid try catches if there is any other way of doing it. Also, that would work to handle this specific case, but if your "extra processing" becomes something a bit more complex, there won't be any easy solution like that.

[@MatteoAntonyMistretta]

@@AByteofCode well I am a functional programmer but monads is where I draw the line. Between an async function and a Promise I prefer an async function whenever I can. Also, creating a Maybe class sounds even less functional to me

[@adicardrz]

Easy, to the point explanation, subbed, looking forward to new videos!

[@AByteofCode]

Ay thanks! Any specific topics you'd be interested in?