[jw-]

I think the jump from 'Category' to 'Value: Anything that can be assigned to a variable.' was a somewhat jarring change in abstraction level.

Also, trying to explain Monad, Comonad, or Applicative as 'jargon' is probably a step too far IMO. They are not important for getting started with FP, and describing them without their equational properties is kind of meaningless.

That being said I liked alot of the inclusions; partial application, closure, composition. I think the collection is probably slightly guilty of trying to be too clever by including advanced concepts.

[sidlls]

These terms provide a concise way to communicate more complex concepts in a technical, specialized context: practically the definition of "jargon."

But that's also the reason I agree with you as regards their utility in most programming. Simply knowing the "what" of the definitions is barely a start. Those who know the definitions and are comfortable enough with the material to use them effectively would find little value in lists of this sort. For most (almost all) programming efforts outside a very narrow niche of academic applications it's not even necessary.

[elihu]

I think it makes sense to include some of the advanced jargon in a list of this kind because they're words that people are likely to encounter in online discussions about functional programming.