I think what we need is "Real World Category Theory" to go along with "Real World Haskell." It's not surprising that it's difficult to get your head around conc

I think what we need is "Real World Category Theory" to go along with "Real World Haskell." It's not surprising that it's difficult to get your head around concepts lovingly referred to as "abstract nonsense." The reality is, of course, that CT is really useful because it is so general, but that same generality is what makes it really hard to grok. More experienced Haskell-ers are often very quick to offer encouragement and to tell you that Monads and Monoids and Functors and Arrows/Morphisms aren't that tough, and they're right, but in some ways they are missing the point. The level of abstraction that those concepts exist is so foreign to most people that they have trouble conceiving of it in any meaningful way until they actually go through and learn enough to kinda get it. At least Monads and Monoids have kinda scary names. Basic category theory concepts like arrows and objects have familiar, inviting name, but they refer to something totally different. Worse than being scared by words, these words leave us thinking we know things they don't.