Matija    about    posts    reading

A little Haskell cheat sheet - Functor vs Applicative vs Monad

When learning about Haskell (from the really good book “Learn You a Haskell for Great Good” by Miran Lipovača) I came across the four typeclasses from the title - Functor, Applicative and Monad.
They all seem to be very cool and powerful, but after reading through all of them it was a bit hard to wrap my mind around it - what is exactly the difference between them, when should I prefer one over another?

This is why I wrote this small cheat sheet - mostly for myself to better remember and understand it, but if it helps somebody else as well even better!

So let’s dig in:



If we have map for lists and its obvious how useful it is, why wouldn’t we have the same thing for any other type of data structure, like e.g. tree? So, what map is for lists, fmap is for any data structure.

More formally, from Data.Functor Hackage doc page:

Functors: uniform action over a parametrized type, generalizing the map function on lists.

One-line explanation

Functor is for mapping over parametrized types, such as [], Maybe, trees, …

Typeclass definition

class Functor f where
    fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
    (<$>) :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Functor typeclass consists of one function only, fmap. fmap works like this:

  • input 1: (a -> b) - function that does the mapping (transformation)
  • input 2: f a - value with a context (“wrapped” value)
  • output: f b - transformed value with the same type of context

<$> is just the infix version of fmap.

Cool stuff it can do

Mapping over anything, either a predefined data structure or the one you created! How cool is that?

When to use it

When we have a value (e.g. Just 10) or data structure (e.g. tree) that provides context along with the data, and we want to transform that data while preserving the type of context.

When not to use it

With functor, we can not change the type of the given context - e.g. after applying a transformation the list will still be a list, Maybe, will still be a Maybe etc.


In the process of finding cool examples.

  • Show mapping over a function (e.g. parametrized newtype, like Parser in Real World Haskell).
  • Explain what does (+) <$> (+3) do

Sources and additional reading


  • Map function in a context to the value in a context
  • Can be chained together
  • We can apply “normal” function to the values with context - “lifting” a function


What if we wanted to apply “normal” function to the values with the context? E.g. what if we had two Maybe values and wanted to use (+) on them? Given Just 3 and Just 5 we’d expect to receive Just 8 as a result, while given Just 3 and Nothing we’d expect Nothing.

This is exactly what Applicative type class helps us achieve.

There is probably some more motivation but this is what I have for now.

One-line explanation

All Applicative instances must also be Functor instances. Given that, with Applicative we can apply function in a context to the value in a context.

Typeclass definition

class (Functor f) => Applicative f where
    pure :: a -> f a
    (<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

We can see that <*> is very similar to <$>, only that given function also has a context. pure is a method that enables us to bring some value in a default context (e.g. a “normal” function we want to use on values with the context).


    (+) <$> Just 3 <*> Just 5 = Just 8

Here we can see how we “lifted” a function (+) to work with Maybe values. We have to start with <$> first since we are starting with a “normal” function without context, so (+) <$> Just 3 produces Just (3+) (or we could have started with pure (+) <*> Just 3). After that we can just add all the other arguments by chaining them with <*> function.


Most cool stuff.