> the content is interesting but the ROI is low ...
Even mathematicians themselves have had this view, for a long time. The attitude appears to be "hey I'm doing my good calculations here, why should I be messing around with arrows?" Theoretical physicists are now getting involved in this debate aswell. So it's a much bigger complaint than "how is this going to give me better programs?"
I've thought so much about this, I don't really know where to start. The functional programming stuff is nice, but it is only one manifestation of CT ideas. Probably, if you are any good at programming you are already "doing" CT. Anytime you have a class invariant, you are "doing" category theory. The methods are preserving some kind of structure (the class invariant.) And that is the key idea behind OOP. That is what it means to have an object and not just a bucket of data. FP does this too but in a strict way; nothing is mutable.
The revelation of CT is how deep (or wide?) these ideas are, but maybe the only thing you get from this is the satori.
Even mathematicians themselves have had this view, for a long time. The attitude appears to be "hey I'm doing my good calculations here, why should I be messing around with arrows?" Theoretical physicists are now getting involved in this debate aswell. So it's a much bigger complaint than "how is this going to give me better programs?"
I've thought so much about this, I don't really know where to start. The functional programming stuff is nice, but it is only one manifestation of CT ideas. Probably, if you are any good at programming you are already "doing" CT. Anytime you have a class invariant, you are "doing" category theory. The methods are preserving some kind of structure (the class invariant.) And that is the key idea behind OOP. That is what it means to have an object and not just a bucket of data. FP does this too but in a strict way; nothing is mutable.
The revelation of CT is how deep (or wide?) these ideas are, but maybe the only thing you get from this is the satori.