4 ms·

Ah another person talking shit about category theory. Category theory will make things simpler. Just give it time, it's very hard to work with that level of gen

Ah another person talking shit about category theory. Category theory will make things simpler. Just give it time, it's very hard to work with that level of generality when you're not used to it and the dogma has not prepared you and the tools are all new.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Ok, we can stop with the satire now. We all know monads are part of a long running inside joke that we normal humans will never really get.
astrobe_ 13y ago
Haskell 1.0: 1990. CAML: 1985. When then?
- DannoHung 13y ago
  Well, given that Haskell 1.0 didn't use category theoretic structures in any serious capacity and it's IO was based on lazy streams, I'd say it's already made things easier in Haskell. How long did it take for calculus to make things easier for most people?
- nbouscal 13y ago
  Whenever you actually put in the time and effort to learn and understand the abstractions. There are plenty of people who have done so and who are enjoying the benefits of having done so. I'm still a novice by comparison, and I still find my understanding of category theory as implemented in Haskell to make my life easier on a very regular basis, to the extent that coding in other languages for my day job is becoming more and more painful as time goes on.
beyondcompute 13y ago
The person speaks about design. When system (our programming tool) is visible (read Donald Norman's "Design of Everyday Things"), provides immediate feedback, shows clearly defined constraints than the system is usable. When "you need the Category theory to use the system" (the theory is magnificent, it's a marvel of human mind, etc. Nobody spoke anything bad about the theory itself) than it's an embarrassingly awkward attempt to conceal one's failure at designing usable programming tool.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  You're conflating tools with products. Having to understand electricity, trigonometry, and basic signal analysis to use an oscilloscope does not mean that oscilloscopes are not useful tools. Those are simply prerequisite knowledge to work as a professional in the field, and the tool is made for professionals. Nobody is complaining that imperative programmers have to learn how memory works, how conditional control structures work, etc. And yet when functional programmers can benefit from learning category theory, suddenly it's a huge problem. This is just anti-intellectualism, nothing else. The term category theory scares people off, and so rather than acknowledge that failing within themselves, they throw it back on the functional programmers and say that programmers shouldn't have to learn category theory. NB: You really don't need to learn category theory to program effectively in Haskell. You can benefit from it, but it is absolutely unnecessary.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

Ok, we can stop with the satire now. We all know monads are part of a long running inside joke that we normal humans will never really get.

astrobe_ 13y ago

Haskell 1.0: 1990. CAML: 1985. When then?

DannoHung 13y ago
Well, given that Haskell 1.0 didn't use category theoretic structures in any serious capacity and it's IO was based on lazy streams, I'd say it's already made things easier in Haskell. How long did it take for calculus to make things easier for most people?
nbouscal 13y ago
Whenever you actually put in the time and effort to learn and understand the abstractions. There are plenty of people who have done so and who are enjoying the benefits of having done so. I'm still a novice by comparison, and I still find my understanding of category theory as implemented in Haskell to make my life easier on a very regular basis, to the extent that coding in other languages for my day job is becoming more and more painful as time goes on.

beyondcompute 13y ago

The person speaks about design. When system (our programming tool) is visible (read Donald Norman's "Design of Everyday Things"), provides immediate feedback, shows clearly defined constraints than the system is usable. When "you need the Category theory to use the system" (the theory is magnificent, it's a marvel of human mind, etc. Nobody spoke anything bad about the theory itself) than it's an embarrassingly awkward attempt to conceal one's failure at designing usable programming tool.

nbouscal 13y ago
You're conflating tools with products. Having to understand electricity, trigonometry, and basic signal analysis to use an oscilloscope does not mean that oscilloscopes are not useful tools. Those are simply prerequisite knowledge to work as a professional in the field, and the tool is made for professionals. Nobody is complaining that imperative programmers have to learn how memory works, how conditional control structures work, etc. And yet when functional programmers can benefit from learning category theory, suddenly it's a huge problem. This is just anti-intellectualism, nothing else. The term category theory scares people off, and so rather than acknowledge that failing within themselves, they throw it back on the functional programmers and say that programmers shouldn't have to learn category theory. NB: You really don't need to learn category theory to program effectively in Haskell. You can benefit from it, but it is absolutely unnecessary.