2 ms·
you draw the wrong conclusion from that excerpt. It does not say "Intuition that cannot be grasped without some category theory". It is saying that you need t
by platz 7y ago
you draw the wrong conclusion from that excerpt. It does not say "Intuition that cannot be grasped without some category theory". It is saying that you need to see many concrete examples to learning something abstract. This is how it works in all of education basically, and there's isn't an easy substitute. Learning "category theory" will not replace your need to see concrete examples to grok something inherently abstract. You'll have to go through the concrete examples anyway.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoThose concrete examples aren't visible until you do category theory. That is what I'm saying. You are drawing the wrong conclusions. There is literally not enough information from the definition of the type class Functor and from examples of usages of that definition for a programmer to truly understand the concept of a functor. That is the conclusion I am deriving. It is not wrong. You are wrong. What's going on is you are deriving a conclusion convenient to your view point. Sure you can get by programming haskell without category theory just like you can program without knowing the notion of an algorithm. However in both cases you are worse off without the knowledge.