This post was updated from the original; feel free to send me feedback at firstname.lastname@example.org !
Monads are difficult to explain without sounding condescending. There’s a lot of anxiety around the topic which compounds the already-significant barriers to entry: namely abstraction, vocabulary, and dependence on other ideas ideas you didn’t ask about.
Instead, I’ll frame a problem and piece-by-piece solve the problem with what will turn out to be a monad.
This post is written in Typed Racket which you can download for free at the Racket website.
1 Overview: monads, in effect
Typed Racket is a functional programming language which heavily discourages imperative programming styles. Like, for instance, programs of this sort:
While in Python a definition such as this is called a “function” I prefer instead the term procedure. Functions are like this:
f (x) = x + 1
If I give
1 I will always get back a
2. No discussion. If I ever did get something else back, may the gods have mercy on all of us.
procedures do not afford us this sort of guarantee, but they also don’t require special blog posts in order to understand and use them to get shit done. So there’s that.
Imperative programming makes use of side-effects: I may write code which alters a database, or reads the time, or has some other side-effect on the state of the machine or surrounding world. In our example above, the procedure takes a list of people (of size
N) and returns a list of responses (of size
M, which may or may not be
How can we model side-effects such as this? And while we’re at it, can we get rid of the boilerplate list-building code as well? Monads supply an answer for both.
2 What the functor … ?
To start our journey toward monads, we must first define functors. For our purposes, a functor is a container type
T which wraps any arbitrary type
a, and allows functions of type
a -> b to be mapped inside the container.
Concrete example: lists are functors, where
a is whatever you have a list of - numbers, strings, booleans, etc.
In fact, in Racket lists also already have a function called
map which given a function
a -> b transforms a
List a into a
What happens is like this:
[ 1 2 3 ] | | | even? even? even? | | | v v v [ #f #t #f ]
Here we converted a
List Integer into a
3 Universal unitarianism
So now we know what functors are: higher-order container types which permit arbitrary functions to be mapped inside of them.
There is one limitation, though. Say you’re using the list functor; if you map a function over a list of 5 elements, you’ll get back a list of 5 elements.
But what if you can’t or shouldn’t assume that your result list will have the same length as your argument list? That is the case for the motivating example at the start of this essay. An even simpler example would be filtering a list of numbers: the result may be shorter than the argument list.
There are many ways to skin this cat but one is to return a list of lists. For filtering, this entails mapping each value of the list into an empty list (failure) or a list of one item (success). A function of type
a -> T a, where
T is a functor, is called unit. Here is the list unit:
Using it, let’s write a function which checks if a number is even and instead of returning
#f returns a singleton list or an empty list:
The computation proceeds like this:
[ 1 2 3 ] | | | list-even? list-even? list-even? | | | v v v [    ]
So the result list is the same length as the input list, but all the values are even.
4 Join me, and together we can bring boredom to the Force
Getting back a list of lists is cool and all, but when I filter items out of a list I expect to get back a list of values, not a list of lists. The reason is I might want to process this list further, and I don’t want to have to write brittle, specialized procedures dealing with increasingly-nested layers of lists.
No, when I filter a
List a I want to get back a
List a. We already have a
List (List a); can we write a routine to flatten out a list of lists?
Absolutely! If you have a function of type
T (T a) -> T a for some functor
T, it is often called join. Here is the list join:
This executes like so:
[    ] --- | | \ / \ / v [ 2 ]
We did it! We wrote a function which maps over a list and changes the structure of the list itself. In this case, a list’s “structure” is its length. Different types will allow for different transformations.
5 We’re in a bind …
Actually, this pattern of
joining the result of a
unit is so common it has its own name: bind.
bind is a map which can alter structure as it goes from element to element. Regardless of what
T is, bind always has the same definition:
Of course that won’t work in Typed Racket; you must substitute specific
map functions. But here is the
Now we can write our code much more elegantly:
list-even? accepts a single scalar number as an argument, yet using
list-bind it is run over the whole list, resulting in a list of a different length.
The whole computation looks like this:
[ 1 2 3 ] | | | list-even? list-even? list-even? -- map / unit | | | v v v [    ] -- join | | | v v v [ 2 ]
This is, in essence, what a monad is: a structure that lets you map a function into the structure which may, as a side-effect, change the structure. Different monads allow for different side-effects.
I want to demonstrate another functor (more succinctly than I did for lists, to be certain) but first, let’s tackle the example from the beginning of this post.
As in that snippet, assume here that
get-referrals is defined meaningfully. So that this example will compile, I’ll write a dummy version that spits out three referrals for each customer given:
Finally, then, we can recreate the Python code:
The result is a list of referrals which may be empty, shorter than, longer than, or equal to the input list of customers.
6 Other monads
An even simpler monad is what I call the
Box: it’s like a list that has exactly one item. On its own, this doesn’t do much for us. But as a monad, it is pretty interesting.
(struct: (a) Box ([open : a])) (: box-map (All (a b) (-> (-> a b) (Box a) (Box b)))) (define (box-map f bx) (Box (f (Box-open bx)))) (: box-unit (All (a) (-> a (Box a)))) (define (box-unit x) (Box x)) (: box-join (All (a) (-> (Box (Box a)) (Box a)))) (define (box-join bx) (Box-open bx)) (: box-bind (All (a b) (-> (Box a) (-> a (Box b)) (Box b)))) (define (box-bind ma f) (box-join (box-map f ma)))
And for shits and giggles here are two innocuous functions:
(: box-even? (-> Integer (Box Boolean))) (define (box-even? n) (if (eq? (modulo n 2) 0) (Box #t) (Box #f))) (: imperative-1 (-> Integer (Box String))) (define (imperative-1 n) (box-bind (box-even? n) (λ: ([b : Boolean]) (box-return (if b "Even" "Odd"))))) (Box-open (imperative-1 10)) (Box-open (imperative-1 11))
If you squint, this sort of looks like an imperative program where you assign the results of function calls to temporary variables. That’s what the
Box monad gives us: simple imperative programming.
Also: this is lisp! You don’t have to pretend! For the sake of completion, below is a macro Thanks to user chandler on the #racket IRC room for teaching me how to do this.
that gives us an imperative syntax for monads. You don’t need to understand but it might be interesting nonetheless.
; these libraries both ship by default with Racket (require (for-syntax racket/syntax)) (require racket/stxparam) (define-syntax-parameter bind (syntax-rules ())) (define-syntax-parameter return (syntax-rules ())) (define-syntax do^ (syntax-rules (:= let) ((_ (:= v e) e2 es ...) (bind e (lambda (v) (do^ e2 es ...)))) ((_ (let [v e] ...) e2 es ...) (let ((v e) ...) (do^ e2 es ...))) ((_ e e2 es ...) (bind e (lambda (_) (do^ e2 es ...)))) ((_ e) e))) (define-syntax (do stx) (syntax-case stx () ((_ prefix e1 e2 ...) (with-syntax ((prefix-bind (format-id #'prefix "~a-bind" #'prefix)) (prefix-return (format-id #'return "~a-unit" #'prefix))) #'(syntax-parameterize ((bind (make-rename-transformer #'prefix-bind)) (return (make-rename-transformer #'prefix-return))) (do^ e1 e2 ...))))))
We can rewrite
For that matter, we can use this slick notation on list computations as well:
; Function written to process one item of a list (: list-times-5-if-even (-> Integer (Listof Integer))) (define (list-times-5-if-even n) (do list (is-even := (return (even? n))) (return (if is-even (* n 5) n)))) ; that very same function automatically applied to the whole list (list-bind '(1 2 3 4 5) list-times-5-if-even) ; => '(1 10 3 20 5)
You get the idea.
7 Conclusion and further points of interest
Monads aren’t hard: they are containers of other values which not only allow the values to be transformed, but the container itself. The structural change is called a side-effect and different monads allow for the controlled propagation of different side effects.
Where all this nonsense really becomes interesting is when you write generic “monadic” functions - not specific to any particular monad - and are able to get different behaviors depending on the monad you choose.
For instance, I could write a simple monadic function to multiply a number by two. Fed into a
Box monad, this simply lets me use it in an imperative function. Fed into a
List monad, this function is automatically applied to a list of values.
list-times-5-if-even function doesn’t have anything in it specific to lists; unfortunately, Typed Racket’s type inference engine is still a bit lacking.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg; now that you have the fundamentals, go read more!