>> Category theory codifies this compositional style into a design pattern, the category. >To the average person, a theory codifying a style into a pattern jus

>> Category theory codifies this compositional style into a design pattern, the category. >To the average person, a theory codifying a style into a pattern just isn't useful But you don't mean "the average person", you mean "the average competent programmer." For example I'm not an "average person" and I don't understand the sentence you linked (the one I quote at the top of this comment.) It's just gobbledegook to me, the way a bit mask is to someone who doesn't know what bits are exactly, they're just, like, 1's and 0's in the computer right? You have to explain a lot before they would even understand what you're talking about. They might not know what a power of 2 has to do with anything. This is an analogy. It's the same - average competent programmers don't have this mental infrastructure. I and most competent programmers have no idea what a category is.