There’s also no real-world analog for a For-loop, but it’s still not a credible complaint to avoid learning C.
Also, just because java objects are called “objects” and not some other word with less colloquial meaning doesn’t mean that they actually map well to real-world objects. Fully understanding the true semantics of Java objects is at least 100x as complicated as fully understanding the true semantics of monads. The only thing it’s easier to do with Java objects is to delude yourself into thinking you might understand them, because they have a familiar name.
map is also quite natural, but isn't it telling that the way a human will do this on paper is by reptition of the same task in sequence... i.e. a for loop.
> The only thing it’s easier to do with Java objects is to delude yourself into thinking you might understand them, because they have a familiar name.
i'm not sure why you consider this 'delusion'? that familiarity of name and concept is precisely why its so easy to learn.
> map is also quite natural, but isn't it telling that the way a human will do this on paper is by reptition of the same task in sequence... i.e. a for loop.
Also, just because java objects are called “objects” and not some other word with less colloquial meaning doesn’t mean that they actually map well to real-world objects. Fully understanding the true semantics of Java objects is at least 100x as complicated as fully understanding the true semantics of monads. The only thing it’s easier to do with Java objects is to delude yourself into thinking you might understand them, because they have a familiar name.