If you start feeling the taste of monad transformers then you can be sure that you already understand everything! I intentionally avoid using words like “effects”, “handlers”, “lifting”, etc. Everything is a functor and natural transformation - keeping it easy.
https://muratkasimov.art/Ya/Articles/Jointed-functor-compositions/
Some feedback: I’m interested in reading about your ideas, but I find these articles hard to get into. It would be helpful to me if they started with an introduction containing motivation and context.
When opening an article, my first question is “is this topic interesting to me?”. If I don’t know what the topic is, even after reading multiple paragraphs, then it’s hard for me to justify spending more time reading.
I’m rejecting this feedback due to lack of specifics.
I think your feedback is spot on. I stopped following along with the articles and the progress of the language a long time ago. The content is so decontexualized that, even though I enjoy learning new things, I can’t find a place for the discussed concepts to live in my mental model because honestly idk what mental model the post relies on! I don’t recognize many of the symbols used, so I can’t tell if I’m reading something using popular mathematical notation, or haskell notation, or something else altogether. Or maybe the post is introducing the new syntax. IDK! This is why papers have an abstract at the beginning. Maybe the reader is expected to have read all of the previous posts? Or just some in particular which aren’t mentioned? But what would a reader gain from figuring all that out? No clue! You have to figure out how to read the article and then actually get through it, and then, I guess you might be able to tell if there was any interesting content inside. Why read an article with a high cost of accessibility and a low chance of learning anything interesting? That’s why I don’t anymore.