functional-programming-jargon VS effects-bibliography

Another useful resource is Functional Jargon Explained (in Javascript): https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon

Functional Programming Jargon is great at explaining these concepts. Monad: https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon#mon...

Purists will say it's not entirely correct, but we don't care about purism :)

I've recently read this thing that really helped monads "click" for me. I find it useful to learn things by example, maybe you do too.

Be the change you want to see in the world haha

https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon/pul...

Functional programming jargon in plain English\ (73 comments)

There's "Functional Programming Jargon" which explains all these concepts in Javascript: https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon

In addition to those 2 (which I think have phenomenal documentation), the language Eff has more theoretical introduction. There is also the Effect bibliography which has a lot of different effect system in different languages, as well as tutorials and academic papers on the subject.

I think it goes back to the neverending quest to find ways of representing computation that allows of ease of composition, changing implementation details, eliminating classes of errors by construction, etc. Monads have had some success in this arena, but they have notable issues with composition; monad transformers help, but can become unwieldy in their own ways.

An alternative are effects, hypothetically allowing for ease in building programs as separate but composeable components which can then be freely mixed in or swapped out. In practice I have found working with effect systems in Haskell via libraries stresses the type system so much you end up with scoped type variables and type applications everywhere. My understanding is that the theory behind using effects to structure computations comes from category theory's Lawvere theories (see e.g. Pretnar's 2010 dissertation on https://github.com/yallop/effects-bibliography). Lawvere theories give rise to many monads (see Bartosz Milewski's article on it -- https://bartoszmilewski.com/2017/08/26/lawvere-theories/), but with nicer compositional properties.

This is where languages like Effekt, Eff, Frank, and Koka come in -- by writing the entire language and type system to support the theories, a lot of the pain of expressing it in Haskell can be avoided.

Not really an answer but Jeremy Yallop maintains a bibliography on the theory and practice of computational effects.