3 ms·

Shouldn't it be easier to explain a general concept than a specific one? The only reason I can think of why this isn't happening is because you need to learn a

Shouldn't it be easier to explain a general concept than a specific one? The only reason I can think of why this isn't happening is because you need to learn a large amount of information before any of the category theory stuff can be applied in real life. But honestly speaking, that can't be true because languages like Haskell exist and isn't that on the whole programming using category theory? (I am be completely wrong about this). OTOH it can also be just a pedagogy issue. That nobody has figured out how to condense it into an undergraduate level so working engineers can grasp basics.

seagreen 6y ago
> languages like Haskell exist and isn't that on the whole programming using category theory? It's not. However claims like that get thrown around a fair amount so the confusion is understandable. That said, some important Haskell abstractions were designed using category theory. So it can be helpful to know some of the lingo (since it will show up in abstraction names and descriptions). And if you're looking to design the next breakthrough Haskell abstraction it might be extremely helpful, but that's not 99% of programmers. However, the people who can do that are super cool, eg https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/andrey.mokhov/selective-functors.pdf https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/andrey.mokhov/selective-functors....
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> Shouldn't it be easier to explain a general concept than a specific one? It depends. Are you an abstract or a concrete thinker? That's one axis of one the standard ways of describing personalities. (Yeah, I know, psychology... but it does seem to describe an actual difference in how people think.) Now, people with one kind of personality can learn to think in the other way, but they won't find it as easy.