3 ms·

You're not wrong. Categories have an inherent monoid on their arrows which composes them, and so concatenative programming is extremely close to categorical pro

You're not wrong. Categories have an inherent monoid on their arrows which composes them, and so concatenative programming is extremely close to categorical programming. The two main ingredients that are missing in the ecosystem are (1) a good intermediate compiler target, and (2) a way to write programs categorically so that we don't have to retype them in each different programming system's syntax.

carapace 6y ago
Cheers! > concatenative programming is extremely close to categorical programming How do they differ? (I'm a newbie at CT. Sorry if that's a dumb question.) FWIW, I suspect that Joy is as good way as any to provide (2). You could implement a basis set of primitive functions and combinators in each different programming system. As for (1) part of what got me into Prolog was the work done on compiling using it. I've actually come to believe that syntax is a macguffin, a kind of blind alley. I have no idea what to use though, C?, LLVM IR?, etc. I've been toying with Prof. Wirth's Oberon RISC CPU as a target. I'd like to go the other way too: translate existing code into categorical forms. (Then do fun things like refactoring, etc...)