About once a week, I think "I really ought to verify that Haskell is trivial." But because it almost certainly is, it's worth 15 mins max.
A blog post titled "Haskell 'category theory' for people who know category theory and/or PL theory" would be a public service...
-
-
But surely the easiest way to prove Haskell trivial is to prove category theory is trivial, and derive it as a corollary!
-
Well, yes, exactly, category theory pretty much *is* trivial, which is part of why I figure Haskell probably is.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And whether or not one finds such use of category theory useful, it hardly makes *Haskell* "trivial" as a functional PL. /3
-
Yes! To get a sense of Haskell as a PL, I’d have to write a large program in it.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I was looking for something else but this might suffice: http://www.mis.mpg.de/lecture-materials/funk-prog/haskell05.pdf … . Crucially non-strict evaluation causes probs
-
Thanks, that’s helpful! The last paragraph, on Yoneda and COS, is cute.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
-
the only impact Haskell has on my life is that colonization by Haskell people keeps me from getting involved in Scala
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dude, it's not that complicated. Haskell lives within a not-so-nice category Hask, which approximates a nicer category ... /1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
... that can usefully be employed for reasoning about programs. Here's a paper about how that goes: https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/jeremy.gibbons/publications/fast+loose.pdf … /2
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.