I'm torn between this being an obvious waste of time and a faint sense of intellectual honesty: "Well, if it ISN'T trivial, I should know."
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
A blog post titled "Haskell 'category theory' for people who know category theory and/or PL theory" would be a public service...
8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
But surely the easiest way to prove Haskell trivial is to prove category theory is trivial, and derive it as a corollary!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
Well, yes, exactly, category theory pretty much *is* trivial, which is part of why I figure Haskell probably is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
It keeps nagging at me, though, so I keep getting sucked in to wasting another 15 minutes without actually finding out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @St_Rev
Monads do seem to be the main “category theory” thing. I think they are probably dumb as a programming language thing, but not sure.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
monads come out naturally; see JavaScript's Promise API which is almost exactly like "the IO monad". why dumb?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meekaale
Ah, that’s a separate question, about pragmatic PL usability, and just a suspicion that would need to be addressed empirically.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meekaale
My real question is whether there’s an interesting CT connection that I ought to understand.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I've just skimmed Moggi's original paper on monads for functional programming https://core.ac.uk/download/files/145/21173011.pdf … and it seems neat :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.