A common link I did not expect to find between category theory and Haskell programming is that if your types line up, it's very very unlikely that you're wrong

@socks wait i thought the whole thing of Haskell was that it was category theory but programming? :0

@alexandria Well, sort of! There is a lot of category stuff involved but you don't need to know actual category theory (as in the branch of mathematics) to do it

And now that I'm studying actual category theory I'm seeing parallels and it's neat

@socks I thought the behaviour of monads was dependent on knowledge from category theory, so to use them properly you had to know it <:O

At least that's when i was last looking into it like 5 years ago lol

its what stopped me from learning it, I was like "im going to learn category theory first" and watched some lectures, then that slowly got shunted off my todo lol

@alexandria In my experience, not at all. You can absolutely use monads in Haskell without knowing what they are in the category theory sense!

@socks @alexandria To add anecdotal evidence to this, I learnt Haskell monads before learning category theory monads. And in one of our courses, we teach monads in functional programming and definitely don't assume category theory. (See lean-forward.github.io/logical)

Basically, the only 2 parts of FP monads you need to understand category theory for, is why they have this name and why people say "a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?"


@socks @alexandria By the way, if you're interested in learning dependently-typed programming and/or formal verification, that's basically my job and I'm more than happy to guide you! :D

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 1
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Mastodon is a server for a federated social network: everyone can run a server if they want to, including me. So this is a Mastodon server for me (Vierkantor) and my friends.