3 ms·

Category theory is nearly a century old; what are you talking about? People write code today to solve these problems, and it's category-theoretic code: https://

Category theory is nearly a century old; what are you talking about? People write code today to solve these problems, and it's category-theoretic code: https://www.categoricaldata.net/fql.html https://www.categoricaldata.net/fql.html

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Yes yes, you are right. I mean new-ish in it's application to things outside of math. And also very new to programming. In terms of just pure math though, category theory is very new when compared to most of the disciplines around today. Also you are completely wrong about it being a century old. It was invented in the 1940s. I'm assuming you just googled it to find counter points. That being said you missed something even OLDER then CQL and the most popular and definitive use of CT in programming today: Haskell. Anyway my main point is that Category Theory can answer some questions about 'deriving' an architecture for a problem rather than having a person 'design' one. The way category theory is used and haskell and CQL is as a framework. In haskell and CQL it's more about designing the system within the constraints of category theory then it is about deriving a system. The derivation of a system from a formal theory was ultimately what I was trying to get at. You can sort of see an outline for the possibility of this happening when you study CT. I'm being really speculative here in case I failed to convey that. Such a system doesn't actually exist (yet). That's all.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Haskell is not really category-theoretic. The category Hask doesn't quite line up with real-world Haskell. The disconnection is well-understood and well-documented [0][1]. Category theory can directly give us systems from theories. See the papers behind FQL/CQL for more details, especially [2] and [3]. [0] https://wiki.haskell.org/Hask https://wiki.haskell.org/Hask [1] http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/publications/danielsson-et-al-popl2006.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/publications/danielsson-et-a... [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Well you're not technically wrong about the Haskell thing. I'll look into FQL and CQL. If such a thing exists, what in your opinion is stopping an architect from using it? Is it just that it's not popular or are there flaws?
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      If you use it now, and it ends up being popular like Java or Python or Haskell are popular today, then you can expect a two-decade delay before you're vindicated.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Yes yes, you are right. I mean new-ish in it's application to things outside of math. And also very new to programming. In terms of just pure math though, category theory is very new when compared to most of the disciplines around today. Also you are completely wrong about it being a century old. It was invented in the 1940s. I'm assuming you just googled it to find counter points. That being said you missed something even OLDER then CQL and the most popular and definitive use of CT in programming today: Haskell. Anyway my main point is that Category Theory can answer some questions about 'deriving' an architecture for a problem rather than having a person 'design' one. The way category theory is used and haskell and CQL is as a framework. In haskell and CQL it's more about designing the system within the constraints of category theory then it is about deriving a system. The derivation of a system from a formal theory was ultimately what I was trying to get at. You can sort of see an outline for the possibility of this happening when you study CT. I'm being really speculative here in case I failed to convey that. Such a system doesn't actually exist (yet). That's all.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Haskell is not really category-theoretic. The category Hask doesn't quite line up with real-world Haskell. The disconnection is well-understood and well-documented [0][1]. Category theory can directly give us systems from theories. See the papers behind FQL/CQL for more details, especially [2] and [3]. [0] https://wiki.haskell.org/Hask https://wiki.haskell.org/Hask [1] http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/publications/danielsson-et-al-popl2006.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/publications/danielsson-et-a... [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1889v2 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00526
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Well you're not technically wrong about the Haskell thing. I'll look into FQL and CQL. If such a thing exists, what in your opinion is stopping an architect from using it? Is it just that it's not popular or are there flaws?
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    If you use it now, and it ends up being popular like Java or Python or Haskell are popular today, then you can expect a two-decade delay before you're vindicated.