4 ms·
An example: Since category theory looks almost like a formal theory of "design" and "abstraction" is looks like if one day someone could come up with an algori
by crimsonalucard 7y ago
An example:
Since category theory looks almost like a formal theory of "design" and "abstraction" is looks like if one day someone could come up with an algorithm or function to formally derive a solution given a set of requirements. To anticipate changing requirements you simply need to adjust the initial set of requirements to be more broader and then this hypothetical function would output a system that can handle potential changes that you anticipated.
This is all hand-wavy and not concrete. Many people who study CT see it as currently the closest thing to a formal theory of "design" and "abstraction." If this is true then techniques or algorithms for deriving architectures of systems can become turn key.
Of course let me emphasize, I'm just speculating here. Not talking about anything that actually exists. Just saying that if you study CT you can kind of see this kind of thing existing sometime in the future.
- krapht 7y agoProving diagrams commute with abstract nonsense is not going to help the average programmer. At most it's a formalism that will help people who design programmer's tools reason about their system, much like relational algebra for databases or Hoare logic for imperative programming, or UML.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoRelational algebra is more or less isomorphic to SQL if you're doing SQL you're doing relational algebra. Hoar logic can prove your programs 100% correct. This is useful for anyone who wants to write a program that's bug free. UML is more of a visualization tool then a theoretical tool. >Proving diagrams commute with abstract nonsense is not going to help the average programmer. What in the world is a proving diagram, and what is abstract nonsense? Please be more clear with your explanations. I am not talking about diagrams and trying to say they commute with anything.