[Haskell-cafe] Article review: Category Theory

[Steve Downey]

One nit and one massive praise.

nit first. in 'the monad laws and their importance' you say "given a
monad M" and then outline the laws a functor must satisfy to be a
monad. I would find it clearer to say 'a functor M', and then
emphasise the iff relationship between the laws and the functor M.

the praise: footnote 3. the relationship between join and bind is why
monads are useful and interesting for programmers. i haven't seen it
stated more clearly before. i supose because people who know it assume
it. suggestion: don't bury this in a footnote.

On 1/16/07, David House <dmhouse at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've written a chapter for the Wikibook that attempts to teach some
> basic Category Theory in a Haskell hacker-friendly fashion.
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory
>
> >From the article's introduction:
>
> "This article attempts to give an overview of category theory, insofar
> as it applies to Haskell. To this end, Haskell code will be given
> alongside the mathematical definitions. Absolute rigour is not
> followed; in its place, we seek to give the reader an intuitive feel
> for what the concepts of category theory are and how they relate to
> Haskell."
>
> I'd love comments from newcomers and experts alike regarding my
> approach, the content, improvements and so on. Of course, it's on the
> wikibook, so if you have anything to add (that's not _too_ substantial
> otherwise I'd recommend discussion first) then go ahead.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> -David House, dmhouse at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>