11–18 of 18 posts
> For example, why don’t operating systems support native JSON or SQL by now? Because the job of the OS is to manage computer hardware resources. 'JSON' and 'SQL' (whatever that means) are not hardware resources. Next stupid article, please. This one is broken.
Despite traces of interesting ideas -- spreadsheets are underappreciated, so is Multics -- this article is full of hot air. It implicitly equates Haskell with functional programming. It hypes HOTT but doesn't explain. It bashes West Coast programming culture for being short sighted and money hungry, while praising the finance industry. (Who are never short sighted or money hungry?) Worst of all, it name-checks a bunc…
Despite traces of interesting ideas -- spreadsheets are underappreciated, so is Multics -- this article is full of hot air. It implicitly equates Haskell with functional programming. It hypes HOTT but doesn't explain. It bashes West Coast programming culture for being short sighted and money hungry, while praising the finance industry. (Who are never short sighted or money hungry?) Worst of all, it name-checks a bunc…
This rather scattered and jargon-laden article seems to be pointing out the differences between the lambda calculus (stateless) and the Turing machine (stateful), which, while computationally equivalent, are not formally equivalent (pardon me if I get the verbiage wrong as I am not a mathematician). While the hardware architecture is essentially a Turing machine and thus stateful, the lambda calculus cannot be mapped…
The other thing this article seems to miss is the level of abstraction at which FP applications need to live. At the OS level, where state is being managed, using FP would be insane. I don't think anyone really would want to do that. The UNIX philosophy of piping along a stream, while it may have something in common with FP, it still exists at a higher level of abstraction than the kernel, which is still a giant, com…
> For example, why don’t operating systems support native JSON or SQL by now? Because the job of the OS is to manage computer hardware resources. 'JSON' and 'SQL' (whatever that means) are not hardware resources. Next stupid article, please. This one is broken.
JSON and SQL are closer to preimages of data and computation manifolds respectively that are projected (or fibrated) via Kan
I don't understand what this article is trying to say. The snippets of category theory just seem to be technobabble: While they are all "mathematically true" (upto a generous reading), they don't really "make sense". It reads like the output of a well trained statistical/neural language model on the #haskell IRC channel. For example: > The act of “unbundling” functions (lambdas) from their traditional containers is r…
- Adjoints are all about joining things hence the name; much like chasing dependencies (arrows) between cells in a spreadsheet and then going back to the relational database where the sheet was extracted from. You have seamlessly jumped from algebraic morphisms to geometry without even thinking about it
- Homotopy is about finding "paths" between things and therefore imply some relative naming (coordinate) scheme is possible. The segments of a path arise due to torsors. Hence homotopy is associated with paths. UNIX paths and URLs come to mind
I don't understand what this article is trying to say. The snippets of category theory just seem to be technobabble: While they are all "mathematically true" (upto a generous reading), they don't really "make sense". It reads like the output of a well trained statistical/neural language model on the #haskell IRC channel. For example: > The act of “unbundling” functions (lambdas) from their traditional containers is r…
- If you are confused, it is probably because FP languages are really only half the story of CT - Adjoints are all about joining things hence the name; much like chasing dependencies (arrows) between cells in a spreadsheet and then going back to the relational database where the sheet was extracted from. You have seamlessly jumped from algebraic morphisms to geometry without even thinking about it - Homotopy is about…
- Homotopy is not about finding paths, it is an equvalence relation _between paths_. a path is _homotopic_ to another. Homotopy is also a _continuous object_, unlike torsors, which are discrete objects (a continuous torsor is an affine space).
So, while UNIX paths and URLs are "paths" in the sense of torsors, they have _nothing_ to do with homotopy (as it is classically defined). Unless you are using some weakened notion of homotopy that I am unaware of, in which case I'd love links.