kotlinmonads alternatives and similar libraries
Based on the "Functional Programming" category.
Alternatively, view kotlinmonads alternatives based on common mentions on social networks and blogs.

Kategory
Λrrow  Functional companion to Kotlin's Standard Library 
Result
The modelling for success/failure of operations in Kotlin and KMM (Kotlin Multiplatform Mobile) 
kotlinresult
A multiplatform Result monad for modelling success or failure operations. 
Komprehensions
Do comprehensions for Kotlin and 3rd party libraries [STABLE] 
reactorkotlinextensions
Kotlin extensions for Reactor. 
Esito
Esito ambition is to be your return type for suspending functions.
Appwrite  The Open Source Firebase alternative introduces iOS support
Do you think we are missing an alternative of kotlinmonads or a related project?
README
kotlinmonads
An attempt to implement monads in Kotlin, deeply inspired by Haskell monads, but restricted within the Kotlin type system.
The monad type
Monadic types are represented by the Monad<M, T>
interface,
where M
should be the type of the implementation with only its T
starprojected. Examples: Maybe<T> : Monad<Maybe<*>, T>
, State<S, T> : Monad<State<S, *>, T>
.
With Monad
defined in this way, we
are almost able to say in terms of the Kotlin type system that a function returns the same Monad
implementation but
with a different type argument R
instead of T
:
fun <T, R, M : Monad<M, *>> Monad<M, T>.map(f: (T) > R) = bind { returns(f(it)) }
val m = just(3).map { it * 2 } as Maybe
We still need the downcast as Maybe
, but at least it's checked.
Usage
Add as a dependency:
repositories {
...
maven { url 'https://jitpack.io' }
}
dependencies {
...
compile 'com.github.h0tk3y:kotlinmonads:0.5'
}
See the usage examples in tests.
How to implement a monad
Monad<M, T>
is defined as follows:
interface Return<M> {
fun <T> returns(t: T): Monad<M, T>
}
interface Monad<This, out T> {
infix fun <R> bind(f: Return<This>.(T) > Monad<This, R>): Monad<This, R>
}
The monad implementation should only provide one function bind
(Haskell: >>=
),
no separate return
is there, instead, if you look at the signature of bind
, you'll see that the function to bind with is f: Return<This>.(T) > Monad<This, R>
.
It means that a Monad<M, T>
implementation should provide the Return<M>
as well and pass it to f
each time, so that inside f
its returns
could be used:
just(3) bind { returns(it * it) }
There seems to be no direct equivalent to Haskell return
, which could be used outside any context like bind
blocks. Outside the bind
blocks, you should either
wrap the values into your monads manually or require a Return<M>
, which can wrap T
into Monad<M, T>
for you.
Mind the monad laws. A correct monad implementation follows these three rules (rephrased in terms of kotlinmonads
):
Left identity:
returns(x) bind { f(it) }
should be equivalent tof(x)
Right identity:
m bind { returns(it) }
should be equivalent tom
Associativity:
m bind { f(it) } bind { g(it) }
should be equivalent tom bind { f(it) bind { g(it) } }
Also, it's good to make the return type of bind
narrower, e.g. bind
of Maybe<T>
would rather return Maybe<R>
than Monad<Maybe<*>, R>
, it allows not to cast
the result of a bind
called on a known monad type.
val m = monadListOf(1, 2, 3) bind { monadListOf("$it", "$it") } // already `MonadList<String>`, no need to cast
Example implementation:
sealed class Maybe<out T> : Monad<Maybe<*>, T> {
class Just<T>(val value: T) : Maybe<T>()
class None : Maybe<Nothing>()
override fun <R> bind(f: Binder<Maybe<*>, T, R>): Maybe<R> = when (this) {
is Just > f(MaybeReturn, value) as Maybe
is None > None()
}
}
object MaybeReturn : Return<Maybe<*>> {
override fun <T> returns(t: T) = Maybe.Just(t)
}
Monads implementations bundled
Maybe<T>
Either<F, T>
MonadList<T>
Reader<E, T>
Writer<T>
(no monoid for now, justString
)State<S, T>
Do notation
With the power of Kotlin coroutines, we can even have an equivalent of the Haskell do notation:
Simple example that performs a monadic list nondeterministic expansion:
val m = doReturning(MonadListReturn) {
val x = bind(monadListOf(1, 2, 3))
val y = bind(monadListOf(x, x + 1))
monadListOf(y, x * y)
}
assertEquals(monadListOf(1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 6, 3, 9, 4, 12), m)
Or applied to an existing monad for convenience:
val m = monadListOf(1, 2, 3).bindDo { x >
val y = bind(monadListOf(x, x + 1))
monadListOf(y, x * y)
}
This is effectively equivalent to the following code written with only simple bind
:
val m = monadListOf(1, 2, 3).bind { x >
monadListOf(x, x + 1).bind { y >
monadList(y, x * y)
}
}
Note that, with simple bind
, each transformation requires another inner scope if it uses the variables bound outside,
which would lead to some kind of callback hell.
This problem is effectively solved using the Kotlin coroutines: the compiler performs the CPS transformation of a plain
code block under the hood. However, this coroutines use case is somewhat out of conventions: it might resume the same continuation
several times and uses quite a dirty hack to do that.
The result type parameter (R
in Monad<M, R>
) is usually inferred, and the compiler controls the flow inside a do block, but still you need to
downcast the Monad<M, R>
to your actual monad type (e.g. Monad<Maybe<*>, R>
to Maybe
), because the type system doesn't seem to allow this to be done
automatically (if you know a way, please tell me).
Be careful with mutable state in do blocks, since all continuation calls will share it, sometimes resulting into counterintuitive results:
val m = doReturning(MonadListReturn) {
for (i in 1..10)
bind(monadListOf(0, 0))
returns(0)
} as MonadList
One would expect 1024 items here, but the result only contains 11! That's because i
is mutable and is shared between all the calls that bind
makes.