I think they also don't understand monads because they have confused notions about the kind of concept "monad" is on the meta level. Their criteria for understanding and their methods of learning are unsuitable for becoming competent with the use of algebraic concepts. They are trying to think their way to a type of "intuition" that simply is not possible, kind of like trying to learn to ride a bike by "understanding" bikes, comparing bikes to various other things, or spamming the internet with complaints about how bikes are strange and difficult. (What's the problem with just taking the bus?!)
If Haskell's "Monad" type class were instead called "AbstractComputationFactory" or some other such intimidating technobabble, then when someone looks up what is the superclass of IO they might just think "oh, that's some weird detail, whatever, I might learn about that later." Since instead the name "Monad" is vaguely funny and appealing, people want to master that concept in principle before they even get "Hello, world!" to run in GHCi.
Of course people are free to focus on whatever they want, and we can talk about the possibility of improving the pedagogical aspects of Haskell, and probably university teachers have interesting things to say about that.
But there is no magic way to explain an algebraic concept that will suddenly make it intuitive and easy. If people want to understand them, they'll have to study. If people want to use them without understanding them on the conceptual level, that is eminently possible.
I myself don't understand monads and I've been using Haskell since 2005. I'm just not good at abstract algebra (flunked that class) and PDFs terrify me. However, even though if a mathematician asked me to explain monads I would be embarrassed, I can still use them and even define my own. That's because I've tinkered with them and acquired a know-how feel for the structure and what they are good for and how the patterns work—which is exactly how I've learned every other concept in programming.
Since most concepts in programming are ad-hoc, informal, and specified by hand waving, there is not even a possibility of understanding them at the level of mathematical rigor. What is an object? What is a class? Nobody knows. They just use them.
More than people trying to learn Monads, I see people trying to teach them. Few people write introductory guides to the "AbstractComputationFactories" of other languages, but it seems like everyone who gets (or thinks they get) monads feels the need to write a guide on them. It's inevitable that newcomers to the language will stumble upon them early on.
True enough. That has to do with the allure of jargon, I think. It's become a meme in itself. Nowadays on the Haskell subreddit, what I see most upvoted are tutorials that involve creating software that does something concrete. If that happens to involve a clever but not overwrought use of cool type system features, all the better. If anyone reading is yearning for some internet points, go write a Haskell tutorial that's useful, concise, and mostly shies away from the rabbit hole of abstract explanations. Even if it's merely about how to run a regexp or do a POST request.
If Haskell's "Monad" type class were instead called "AbstractComputationFactory" or some other such intimidating technobabble, then when someone looks up what is the superclass of IO they might just think "oh, that's some weird detail, whatever, I might learn about that later." Since instead the name "Monad" is vaguely funny and appealing, people want to master that concept in principle before they even get "Hello, world!" to run in GHCi.
Of course people are free to focus on whatever they want, and we can talk about the possibility of improving the pedagogical aspects of Haskell, and probably university teachers have interesting things to say about that.
But there is no magic way to explain an algebraic concept that will suddenly make it intuitive and easy. If people want to understand them, they'll have to study. If people want to use them without understanding them on the conceptual level, that is eminently possible.
I myself don't understand monads and I've been using Haskell since 2005. I'm just not good at abstract algebra (flunked that class) and PDFs terrify me. However, even though if a mathematician asked me to explain monads I would be embarrassed, I can still use them and even define my own. That's because I've tinkered with them and acquired a know-how feel for the structure and what they are good for and how the patterns work—which is exactly how I've learned every other concept in programming.
Since most concepts in programming are ad-hoc, informal, and specified by hand waving, there is not even a possibility of understanding them at the level of mathematical rigor. What is an object? What is a class? Nobody knows. They just use them.