|
|
|
|
|
|
by reinman
1440 days ago
|
|
|
Functions are at best glorified cat containers. I can write a script and never use a function. I can write SQL and never use a function. The Turing tape never mentions "functions" So functions are hardly the bedrock of computing that some claim it is Categories specifically contain "morphisms". Then FP completely gets category theory wrong by trying to claim that functions are immutable. Which is it? Instead of chasing strawmen, why not address some of the issues raised in the article directly? Code reuse? Integration? Use of convergence hardware? Interactivity? |
|
|
I don't think you can, UNLESS we get into semantic arguments of what a function is. SQL is implemented with functions in a different language.
Are you thinking that "function" is anything that literally has the "function" keyword?
> Categories specifically contain "morphisms". Then FP completely gets category theory wrong by trying to claim that functions are immutable.
CT is an abstract mathematical concept. In order to use it, you have to FIND the categories in the real world using the definition. CT isn't something usable on its own unless you are doing high level abstract math and doing proofs etc.
In other words, CT is APPLIED to Computer Science and then we can talk about functions as morphisms. They don't compete with each other, but rather CT is a way to understand the structure of computation. FP is building on top of that (pure FP, Haksell, Idris, etc). If you want to disprove how FP is doing CT incorrectly, that is not going to be easy.