I'm not sure you actually disagree with his method of learning monads.
He primarily advocates for avoiding the use of analogies, which you seem to agree with. He advocates using concrete monads in real code, which you also seem to agree with.
The only contentious point might be learning typeclasses and how monads fit into the Typeclassopedia. If you want to be able to trace how your monad-using code is evaluated this is a necessity. Like it or not. Also, attacking monads from both the concrete and the abstract at the same time seems to be a good approach, with satori being achieved once the understandings meet. A dynamic-programming approach?
You may possibly be disagreeing with the order in which he lists these components of learning in his 'Eightfold Path', but if the analogy to the Buddhist teachings is followed further, then the steps need not be taken in sequence.
The slides certainly include many monad examples besides maybe at any rate.
He primarily advocates for avoiding the use of analogies, which you seem to agree with. He advocates using concrete monads in real code, which you also seem to agree with.
The only contentious point might be learning typeclasses and how monads fit into the Typeclassopedia. If you want to be able to trace how your monad-using code is evaluated this is a necessity. Like it or not. Also, attacking monads from both the concrete and the abstract at the same time seems to be a good approach, with satori being achieved once the understandings meet. A dynamic-programming approach?
You may possibly be disagreeing with the order in which he lists these components of learning in his 'Eightfold Path', but if the analogy to the Buddhist teachings is followed further, then the steps need not be taken in sequence.
The slides certainly include many monad examples besides maybe at any rate.
I think the slides are worth another look :)