I agree and disagree. There is nothing about the usage of Cofree and other similar concepts which is "not programming". I think it's a completely viable way to

I agree and disagree. There is nothing about the usage of Cofree and other similar concepts which is "not programming". I think it's a completely viable way to write software within a particular scope (e.g. depending on the team that will work with the internals of the code, and whether the users of the library are to be required to understand the concept). If it provides the correct abstraction and can lead to more performant, maintainable and/or readable code (which is of course subjective), then by all means. That said, I agree that the article doesn't spend a great deal of time explaining the concepts, whether blockchain itself or the category theory it's using, leading to a sense (for me) of being overly terse and coming across as a bit pompous. Although, I realize that for a certain audience there's nothing pompous about this at all and it might seem perfectly reasonable.