

Learning Haskell through category theory - Kototama
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/learning-haskell-through-category-theory-and-adventuring-in-category-land-like-flatterland-only-about-categories/

======
davidmathers
The first book on his list, Conceptual Mathematics, is the the way to go. Most
intros assume you are a math student and are already familiar with abstract
algebra.

It's available on google books:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=o1tHw4W5MZQC&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=o1tHw4W5MZQC&printsec=frontcover)

It's also written by the guy who was a driving force in the development of
category theory. More so than even its creators, who laughed at him when as a
student he first told them his idea of it being a foundation for all
mathematics.

~~~
raju
Thanks! Will certainly read some of it online, and then maybe head out to the
bookstore.

I have always wondered if learning the Math behind languages like Haskell will
help me understand Haskell (and FP) better, and part of my resolution this
year has been to "go back to the basics". I am certainly looking forward to
having this book on my reading list.

------
raju
Considering I am knee deep in Haskell right now, can anyone here tell me why
Category theory is necessary to learn Haskell, and furthermore, a text that
they know of? (No offense to the other, but that was a lot of books he listed.
I am looking for a starting point)

Edit - I meant to say "No offense to the _author_

~~~
arockwell
My understanding is that a lot of the concepts and terminology of Haskell are
rooted in category theory (e.g., monad, functor, etc.). I don't think its
necessary to learn category theory, but it might help if you're mathematically
inclined.

~~~
likpok
Understanding category theory would help you understand at a deeper level the
idea of a monad, et al. Haskell uses a small subset of the math, IIRC.

This is more for mathy people who want to see where it comes from. I'm not
sure it would actually be helpful in understanding (as Haskell is a few
notches down the abstraction post than categories).

EDIT: Furthermore, it might require a heftier background in abstract algebra
than most people have/want.

~~~
rkowalick
Pretty much _everything_ is below category theory in terms of abstraction.

