3 ms·
I have looked into category theory a bit and admit I have a lot to learn. Nothing in this article made sense to me. I'm not sure if that reflects the article o
by xupybd 4y ago
I have looked into category theory a bit and admit I have a lot to learn. Nothing in this article made sense to me.
I'm not sure if that reflects the article or my own intelligence. In either case these ideas need better explanation if they want average developers like me onboard.
What I like about FP is that I can reason about the program in my head. Especially with F#'s strong type system. Often I can sit down and plan a simple system just by writing down the types I need to represent my domain. Then I can write down the function signatures/types for the actions I need to get my program working. Then it's like painting by numbers to fill out the function bodies.
This crafting thing sounds like copilot on steroids. Copilot is amazing but is also unreliable. I'm not sure how on earth this is all going to be reliable. It also sounds like it would be harder for me to understand what is going on. To me that's a step backwards.
My brain is fried trying to understand that article. I'm seriously confused.
- reinman 4y agoNot co-pilot, but dependent types on steroids. Multi-dimensional dependent types to be more precise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iKwq9iRHWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iKwq9iRHWk But that's why I boiled things down to Minecraft style crafting. Mainstream programmers don't have time to learn category theory or dependent type theory etc. ... or even care. The Lambda Conference stuff caters to a small group of programmers that are already happy with FP etc. for whatever they are doing (usually program verification, not mainstream coding) There is a notion of "categorical thinking" where you try to free your brain from the urge to compartmentalize. Imagine the smartphone example