|
|
|
|
|
|
by francogt
1488 days ago
|
|
|
The author’s objective is to teach the category theoretical concepts that get used in FP. This is particularly important in Haskell since it uses some of these concepts (functors, applicatives, monads, etc.) as design patterns. He’s objective has never been for the reader to learn this and apply it to prove math theorems. Both set and category theory are foundational systems for mathematics (or attempting to be). Category theory being newer is trending and probably why you get the sense that it’s considered more prestigious. But I’ve never heard anyone claim it is more prestigious. |
|
|
I actually criticise the illusion (that the book and the series bring) that the category theory is "the ultimate source" of motivation in FP languages.
On one hand, it's direct (and very natural) to reproduce some categorical structures in a FP language (e.g. Haskell, ML) since such a language is around functions and values. I doubt that such categorical structures should be considered patterns.
On other hand, Haskell or ML does not come from the category theory, it comes from PCF as a language which is created to make program correctness proving is "easy".
I dont want to mean someone using this book to prove mathematical theorems, I just want to say that it's superficial (about both category theory and computer science), and does not bring sufficient knowledge upon that we can build nontrivial results.