4 ms·
Its riding the haskell bandwagon to some degree. By borrowing ideas from category theory they have some really nice abstractions in practical code. But then i
by cschneid 12y ago
Its riding the haskell bandwagon to some degree. By borrowing ideas from category theory they have some really nice abstractions in practical code. But then it gets more confusing so you want to loop back and see what the actual definition of a "monoid" is, or understand "functors". Even if haskell's idea of functor isn't 1 to 1 with category theory's.
- bstamour 12y agoThe only thing I can think of that's wrong with Haskell's functors is that they're more specifically endofunctors, or am I missing something else?
- jberryman 12y agoAnd Hask is arguably not a proper category
- bstamour 12y agoCan you expand on this? I'm genuinely curious.
- T-R 12y agoMy understanding is that it's not a proper category due to the presence of Bottom - https://wiki.haskell.org/Bottom https://wiki.haskell.org/Bottom > Bottom is a member of any type, even the trivial type () [...] If it were not, the compiler could solve the halting problem and statically determine whether any computation terminated You can imagine function composition and identity don't work too well on things that never complete.
- bstamour 12y agoAh yes, you're right. I always forget about bottom.