> … rather than expressing them as particular instances of more general things (as you'd do using category theory), he breaks them into a small set of more fund

> … rather than expressing them as particular instances of more general things (as you'd do using category theory), he breaks them into a small set of more fundamental things which can be re-combined into familiar design patterns. How do these two approaches differ from each other? As far as I can see, they’re exactly the same thing. From the linked article: > Smith introduces a foundational layer of patterns terminology: a collection of core patterns that can't be decomposed further. This is exactly the purpose of category theory. Rather than have group theory, set theory, propositional logic, etc., category theory unites all of these into something that cannot be decomposed further (identity and composition).