3 ms·

No, in the article I'm referencing he goes further, to concepts. It's here: https://www.amazon.com/What-Category-Theory-Giandomenico-Sica/dp/8876990313 https:/

No, in the article I'm referencing he goes further, to concepts. It's here: https://www.amazon.com/What-Category-Theory-Giandomenico-Sica/dp/8876990313 https://www.amazon.com/What-Category-Theory-Giandomenico-Sic... I had confused in my mind -tectonic with a phrase from another book I admire: https://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981 https://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetroni.... I guess that's what I get for not double-checking; and you get a random book link :)

fapjacks 7y ago
However thanks for not using referral/affiliate links. :)
notfashion 7y ago
Yes, I did (later on) see his "stretch" version of the slogan at the end of the article, but I don't buy it. Everyone knows there are operations that can't be encoded in category theoretic terms, for example a lot of things in analysis. It's silly to claim that it subsumes all concepts. He also alludes in that final paragraph to Kant (who used the term architectonic in his philosophy) so that's a hint that he has a Kantian perspective in mind. IMO that makes that final paragraph too speculative and frankly just out of scope if we're trying to talk about the design of software. I know a bit about Kant, and it seems to me that he doesn't really have anything to say about what a theory of the design of abstractions would look like. It's all too much of a stretch. Combining philosophers and category theory (take Zalamea for example) seems to produce "architecture astronauts,".