The Universe of Discourse

Monad terminology problem
I think one problem (of many) that beginners might have with Haskell monads is the confusing terminology. The word "monad" can refer to four related but different things:

1. The Monad typeclass itself.

2. When a type constructor T of kind ∗ → ∗ is an instance of Monad we say that T "is a monad". For example, "Tree is a monad"; "((→) a) is a monad". This is the only usage that is strictly corrrect.

3. Types resulting from the application of monadic type constructors (#2) are sometimes referred to as monads. For example, "[Integer] is a monad".

4. Individual values of monadic types (#3) are often referred to as monads. For example, the "All About Monads" tutorial says "A list is also a monad".

The most serious problem here is #4, that people refer to individual values of monadic types as "monads". Even when they don't do this, they are hampered by the lack of a good term for it. As I know no good alternative has been proposed. People often say "monadic value" (I think), which is accurate, but something of a mouthful.

One thing I have discovered in my writing life is that the clarity of a confusing document can sometimes be improved merely by replacing a polysyllabic noun phrase with a monosyllable. For example, chapter 3 of Higher-Order Perl discussed the technique of memoizing a function by generating an anonymous replacement for it that maintains a cache and calls the real function on a cache miss. Early drafts were hard to understand, and improved greatly when I replaced the phrase "anonymous replacement function" with "stub". The Perl documentation was significantly improved merely by replacing "associative array" everywhere with "hash" and "funny punctuation character" with "sigil".

I think a monosyllabic replacement for "monadic value" would be a similar boon to discussion of monads, not just for beginners but for everyone else too. The drawback, of introducing yet another jargon term, would in this case be outweighed by the benefits. Jargon can obscure, but sometimes it can clarify.

The replacement word should be euphonious, clear but not overly specific, and not easily confused with similar jargon words. It would probably be good for it to begin with the letter "m". I suggest:

So return takes a value and returns a mote. The >>= function similarly lifts a function on pure values to a function on motes; when the mote is a container one may think of >>= as applying the function to the values in the container. [] is a monad, so lists are motes. The expression on the right-hand side of a var ← expr in a do-block must have mote type; it binds the mote on the right to the name on the left, using the >>= operator.

I have been using this term privately for several months, and it has been a small but noticeable success. Writing and debugging monadic programs is easier because I have a simple name for the motes that the program manipulates, which I can use when I mumble to myself: "What is the type error here? Oh, commit should be returning a mote." And then I insert return in the right place.

I'm don't want to oversell the importance of this invention. But there is clearly a gap in the current terminology, and I think it is well-filled by "mote".

(While this article was in progress I discovered that What a Monad is not uses the nonceword "mobit". I still prefer "mote".)

[Other articles in category /prog/haskell] permanent link