I get why you think that, but the names are actually precise in the way that terminology in an academic paper is precise. It's just not helpful to outsiders. It

I get why you think that, but the names are actually precise in the way that terminology in an academic paper is precise. It's just not helpful to outsiders. It's arguably pretentious to draw on category theory to describe types and functions but that's academia for you. Haskell has become the language that academia built, for better or worse. Maybe that's a shame. Take fmap, functor-map, for example. It's just​ map if you apply it to a List. But it's more general. You can apply it to a Tree or a List of Lists or any other Functor. They could have called Functor a Bag or a Box or a Container or a Listable. They could have called it an Fmapable, since Fmapable is the class of things fmap works on. Might have missed an opportunity. Or take the monadic bind operator >>=. Another language calls it and_then. I can see how that's more friendly.