"Introduction to monads" articles generally miss the mark because either 1) they insist on using Haskell syntax throughout, and this is most likely to be unfamiliar and obtuse to programmers looking for this kind of articles. Expecting people to learn a new syntax at the same time as a new concept is bound to be confusing. At least it was for me when I first came across the idea. Or 2) they go through a bunch of examples with various names and number of methods, like Maybe and Collection in this article, and the reader is supposed to infer the common structure themselves. At least this article goes through the formal definition, but I think that ideally that should come first, as it is easier to see the structure of the examples once you have established a mental model.
> they insist on using Haskell syntax throughout, and this is most likely to be unfamiliar and obtuse to programmers looking for this kind of articles.
Indeed, that is a big part of a problem.
I find "Functional Programming Jargon" [1] extremely approachable (if you already know modern JS) even though it has been pointed out that their definitions might not be "pure"/correct enough.
