/explore
|
You are here 
|
cronokirby.com | ||
| | | | |
johnbender.us
Writings on computer stuff. |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
bartoszmilewski.com
This is part 12 of Categories for Programmers. Previously: Declarative Programming. See the Table of Contents. It seems like in category theory everything is related to everything and everything can be viewed from many angles. Take for instance the universal construction of the product. Now that we know more about functors and natural transformations, can... |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
www.jeremykun.com
Last time we worked through some basic examples of universal properties, specifically singling out quotients, products, and coproducts. There are many many more universal properties that we will mention as we encounter them, but there is one crucial topic in category theory that we have only hinted at: functoriality. As we've repeatedly stressed, the meat of category theory is in the morphisms. One natural question one might ask is, what notion of morphism is there between categories themselves? |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
aymannadeem.github.io
Folds are difficult to intuitively reason about Implementing folds can be tricky, brain-bending conquests in Haskell. This becomes all the more challenging in domains where associativity and strictness properties are less straightforward, such as when writing Template Haskell. While folds appear deceptively simple, they can be confusing to implement in practice. Without a structured way to fact-check one's intuition, it can be easy to overlook subtle intricacies, naively choose a left fold when the problem required a right fold, etc. Re-thinking original assumptions costs precious time and can leave you feeling like a dysfunctional baby. Luckily, there is a more methodical way to navigate these handy and useful higher-order functions. |
|
| | | |||
