3 ms·
Of course. But I'm not terribly interested in categorical products. They are types inhabited by objects (in the OOP sense: records of methods). I'm more intere
by catnaroek 10y ago
Of course. But I'm not terribly interested in categorical products. They are types inhabited by objects (in the OOP sense: records of methods).
I'm more interested in tensor products (types inhabited by plain tuples of data!), which strict languages do have, and which actually distribute over sums.
- danharaj 10y agoPorque no los dos? Polarized languages have all the correct semantics and a value/computation distinction and their categorical models aren't that much more complicated than a plain old category.
- catnaroek 10y agoI said just that, twice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12240669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12240669, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12240622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12240622 The reason why I care more about values is that, in a general-purpose language, computations will always be somewhat ill-behaved. As far as I can tell, the most we can aspire to is to “cordon off” the misbehavior so that it doesn't infect values - which is exactly what strict languages do, and lazy languages don't do.
- danharaj 10y agoAh so you did. I think your opinion is fair. I care more about computations because they're easier to compose than values. i suppose those are the two major camps on the issue.
- catnaroek 10y ago> I care more about computations because they're easier to compose than values. That's also fair, of course.