3 ms·
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-documen
by 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 agoWell 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 agoIf 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.