6 ms·
For anyone that may want a deeper look into Category Theory from the perspective of a programmer I highly recommend - https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/cat
by bojo 8y ago
For anyone that may want a deeper look into Category Theory from the perspective of a programmer I highly recommend - https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-programmers-the-preface/ https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-p...
He also covers it all in few youtube series - https://www.youtube.com/user/DrBartosz/playlists https://www.youtube.com/user/DrBartosz/playlists
- jxub 8y agoSince yesterday, his blog posts are also available as a hardcover book: http://www.blurb.com/b/9008339-category-theory-for-programmers http://www.blurb.com/b/9008339-category-theory-for-programme...
- macmac 8y agoI wish it could be shipped from Europe too. Shipping makes it prohibitively expensive.
- bg4 8y agoThanks for this, just bought a copy. We watched his youtube series at work and it was great.
- mesarvagya 8y agoI purchased the book about 2 months ago from lulu, but it looks like it is not present there anymore.
- louthy 8y agoI also heartily recommend this. I’ve been watching the videos whilst ploughing through the PDF book version [1] on my Kindle. He really is a very good teacher. [1] https://github.com/hmemcpy/milewski-ctfp-pdf https://github.com/hmemcpy/milewski-ctfp-pdf
- theoh 8y agoJust another opinion on this: I don't think "Category Theory for Programmers" is that great from a pedagogical perspective. I get that its freely accessible, but like the "Haskell from First Principles" book, the quality of the exposition is a bit questionable. Call me old-fashioned, but when it comes to learning math, I believe it pays to seek out people who really know how to teach the subject, rather than (what might uncharitably be described as) self-promoters churning out half-baked introductory materials. This goes for the "Catsters" video series as well. Everybody points to them as if they're brilliant, but compared to what standard? Sometimes it feels as if the people who blithely link to these resources are indifferent to whether the teaching is good or bad. Even Mac Lane's book "Categories for the Working Mathematician" has been credibly criticised for being poorly written—but because it's so famous/prestigious it still gets loads of five-star reviews. Personally, I'd recommend Categories and Computer Science by RFC Walters, or Steve Awodey's Category Theory for a more general overview. (This might all sound peevish, but it feels like a real hazard of trying to learn difficult things from the web: the most conspicuous and superficially charismatic offerings/lecture notes/blogs don't always turn out to be reliable or well thought-out when it comes to an average person actually trying to learn the material. Monads are a good example of this bad situation. A good way to learn about monads would be to have a few, shortish, interactive conversations with an expert. Ten thousand cute online monad analogy tutorials is the opposite of this: it's actively counterproductive because each new analogy just creates more vagueness and FUD.)
- elbear 8y agoIt would help readers if you pointed out specifically what you think is wrong with Category Theory for Programmers.
- Legogris 8y agoComplementary: "The Catsters" on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCatsters https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCatsters
- mesarvagya 8y agoI also brought the book written by Bartosz titled "Category Theory for Programmers", to support his work in this field. Good book.
- kqr2 8y agoIt seems like the book is "unofficial" and published by someone else so not sure if the author actually gets any royalties.
- selimthegrim 8y agoAlso compelled to plug this by a friend of a friend - https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2016/11/category_theory_in_context.html https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2016/11/category_theory...