Re: [Haskell-cafe] Category theory as a design tool

Thanks Sebastien, This paper has passed in my radar's field but I must confess that although I think I grasped the idea, I was quickly lost in the profusion of symbols and notations. I am no mathematician, only a simple developer, although I am fascinated by several topics in mathematics so my attention tend to drop sharply when confronted with more or less complex proofs and layers of defintions and mappings. But of course, this may be a requisite to get to something so I am willing to pay some price, to the limit of my capabilities. Arnaud On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Sebastien Zany wrote:

Hi Arnaud, I'm not the best person to answer this question, and I'm not certain this constitutes an answer, but you might be interested in Conal Elliott's paper "Denotational design with type class morphisms" available at http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/. Sebastien

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Arnaud Bailly wrote:

...

(2nd try, took my gloves off...) Hello Café, I have been fascinated by Cat. theory for quite a few years now, as most people who get close to it I think.

I am a developer, working mostly in Java for my living and dabbling with haskell and scala in my spare time and assuming the frustration of having to live in an imperative word. More often than not, I find myself trying to use constructs from FP in my code, mostly simple closures and typical data types (eg. Maybe, Either...). I have read with a lot of interest FPS (http://homepages.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~tk/fps/) which exposes  a number of OO patterns inspired by FP.

Are there works/thesis/books/articles/blogs that try to use Cat. theory explicitly as a tool/language for designing software (not as an underlying formalisation or semantics)? Is the question even meaningful?

Thanks in advance, Arnaud

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe