Why category theory matters in programming

Why category theory matters in programming(tech.iheart.com)

129 points by kailuowang 8 years ago | 45 comments

ebola1717 8 years ago |

Eh, as someone who works in scala day-to-day, and has studied actual category theory, I think the emphasis on category theory itself is silly. And in fact, most of the time, more category theory and more monads will make your code worse (e.g. MonadTransformers are D: )

Future, which is really a souped up promise abstraction, is the main star, and for-comprehensions are nice syntactic sugar. Being a "Monad" doesn't help you do anything with it though. And Future technically doesn't even truly obey the Monad laws, because of exceptions.

It's useful that a couple of container classes in scala use implement this trait:

    trait ChainableContainer[A] {
      def map(fn: A => B): ChainableContainer[B]
      def flatten(nested: ChainableContainer[ChainableContainer[A]]):ChainableContainer
    }

But beyond making it a little easier to guess what's going on, the underlying math isn't useful in actual programming.

tel 8 years ago | |

That has a little to do with Scala just being a pretty bad place to implement most of these things. E.g., Monad transformers work just great in Haskell but are terrible in Scala due to the sort of terrible ways type parameters and inference work together.

Future also doesn't obey the monad laws for not being RT and that causes a lotttt of complexity.

throwawayjava 8 years ago | | |

OK, I'm another data point for "studied category theory; program in an ML dialect; think it's silly".

Most all the theorist/logician/algebraist-turned-programmer folks I know all feel more-or-less the same way.

Just explain the pattern in english. Might as well call it a FooDeBar. Giving axioms and such is usually a waste of The Man's money and my time.

That said, I think it's extremely valuable to see this sort of thing in an academic or side project/enrichment activity setting. The mindset and mental model are fantastically helpful. See dshnkao's post, for example.

hota_mazi 8 years ago | | |

It's not just monad transformers, monads themselves are pretty awkward to use in any language that's not Haskell. And actually, a lot of FP languages simply don't even have monads at all (OCaml, F#).

Monads should never have escaped Haskell.

Retra 8 years ago | |

I was reading very famous paper[1] today, and I stopped at the following:

    "To get an adequate definition of g [<] f we must therefore consider all possible algorithms for computing f."

You see, I was reading this paper because I'm currently looking into various ways of that the symmetries of Turing machines are modeled (I.e., the fact that a TM can emulate any other TM would seem to imply that the concept of an 'algorithm' must have fundamental features that are preserved across this kind of virtualization. Closely related to the concepts of an Oracle, a Non-deterministic TM, and recursion.)

Now, this passage stood out to me because it seemed to be a set-theoretic, indirect phrasing of the exact symmetry I'm talking about. We have to consider all algorithms for computing f in order to recover the features that must be true for all f, and thus give identity to the notion of a general algorithm for f. Which in turn is used to establish theorems about such a general algorithm notion; (critically, its "relative complexity".)

My point being that I would not have expressed this notion in set theoretic language because my intuition wants it expressed in algebraic language. Things are identified by their symmetries, and building theories around symmetries directly is more efficient and insightful than building theories around how those symmetries are embedded in set theory. And when I sit around thinking about how to design a good API or an efficient program, I want to do it by stating what must always be true about the problems I'm solving, in a high-level, abstract way. (I'm not so good at it in practice.)

Set theory may be a simple model of many things, but it is only really intuitive for things that can be easily described in terms of unions and intersections. It is often just extra work elsewhere, at least if you have a frame of mind to see other ways.

[1] https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sacook/homepage/rabin_thesis.pdf

tome 8 years ago | | |

http://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/greenspun/

dshnkao 8 years ago | |

as someone who also works in scala, MonadTransformer is so much better than gigantic nested flatMaps and pattern matchings

keithnz 8 years ago |

Functional Programming and Category Theroy are great, there's a strong level of robustness in the whole approach to programming.

The author slams imperative programming, it isn't backboned on a robust compositional system, as is often done by FPers

BUT :)

there's lots of good programs in both styles....to me, this implies that there are more important things that matter to programming, the design to achieve a purpose. It's nice to express your designs in a robust system ( and be influenced by it), but what matters most is the design choices you make. When I look at well programmed things it's always the design choices that impress me.

m_mueller 8 years ago | |

Coming from HPC, I think imperative programming will stay as long as we don't have an AGI that does the actual programming for us, as it's the model with the highest possible abatraction that still gives you the whole truth about the underlying memory operations (and thus allows you to optimize for it without having your hands tied behind your back and just trusting the compiler gods). Not saying that this is how one should usually program in a context where performance is not the highest goal, but there's always going to be these usecases.

jonahx 8 years ago | | |

Agreed. That said, the problem is that imperative programming is still used widely in contexts (eg, 95% of web programming) where performance is not an issue and high-level abstractions such as those used in FP are more appropriate. This is almost entirely due, imo, to the paradigm's inertia and to bad education.

thomastjeffery 8 years ago | |

The wonderful thing is that we can mix the two.

One great method is to write your program using a nice functional language (Haskell, CL/racket/scheme, etc.), and where you want optimizations, replace functions with lower level imperative language implementations (C/C++, rust, etc.) and FFI.

LolWolf 8 years ago |

Category theory is fine, I guess, but there's no need to invoke a sledge-hammer when talking about 99% of most work here.

It's a little like saying, yes, fine we can reference the hyperreals to derive infinitesimal calculus in a beautiful way, but it's mostly abstract and highly involved, even to just understand the foundational aspects (which one may argue is the case for normal calculus, but the notion of local linearity I believe is much more obvious than an extension to the reals). Though it's a nice academic exercise, which may even yield some insights, it's rather obscure and unintuitive for almost all purposes.

This is the way I view category theory and functional programming; though I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong. There's no need to invoke almost all of it, since most things can be expressed quite clearly in the language of set theory need there be rigour.

eastWestMath 8 years ago | |

But infinitesimal calculus is all about local linearity, in the analytic formulation you're taking the closest linear approximation to the function at that point. Using the dual numbers approach, there is an infinitesimal (nilpotent) region around each point which is linear.

purescript 8 years ago |

Category theory matters to programming because, among other things, it teaches us how to abstract over programming languages. What better definition of abstract programs than "things with types which compose"?

Now consider categories with various types of constructions (products, limits, exponentials, etc.) and you'll notice they correspond to requiring certain features in your language.

kafkaesq 8 years ago |

That's nice, but form a hard-nosed engineering perspective, not just sometimes, but in general 19 lines of yucky procedural code that pretty much anyone can understand (and debug) are usually way, way better than 9 lines of "elegant" functional code comparatively far fewer people can (really) understand - and which can be comparatively far more sinister and nefarious to debug.

Given that, after all, it's just posting likes we're talking about. You'd think that with such a bold proposition as "Why category theory matters -- no really, it does!" this would be about hot-synching whole data centers, or getting drones to deliver medicine in Africa, or something like that. You know, something perhaps unthinkable (or maybe just far less tractable) with procedural (or just less sophistical functional) code.

But no, in this case apparently it's about... updating your FB likes.

d--b 8 years ago |

Er... I think that people tend to use the if then else approach, because it is actually more flexible, in the sense that you may actually want to do something else than return false when something wrong happens in one of the functions in the composition chain...

hprotagonist 8 years ago |

  category*

twic 8 years ago | |

  category * -> *

kailuowang 8 years ago | |

oops...

Veedrac 8 years ago |

> So, is there a simple and universal way to compose these functions?

proceeds to add layers of complexity

Why not just write a function to compose them? Argue against the competition, not strawmen.

WkndTriathlete 8 years ago | |

Most code that is written has effects - null returns, error returns, exceptions, IO, etc., etc. We can write a custom function to compose every pair of functions we write, but some clever people figured out there were patterns to this madness - map, flatMap, lift, return, etc. - and it's far more efficient to write those patterns once and reuse them.

Essentially, it's DRY at a higher level of abstraction.

Veedrac 8 years ago | | |

You still have to write each composition operator separately; writing the code to compose null returns doesn't give you the code to compose IO. Only difference is whether they have separate names.

thomastjeffery 8 years ago |

What language are these coffee examples written in?

The article doesn't give me a reference for what syntax I'm trying to parse, and while most of it is easy to guess, it would be helpful to have an explicit reference.

esarbe 8 years ago | |

That would be Scala. (http://www.scala-lang.org/)

Twisell 8 years ago |

This kind of contribution always make me hesitate betweeen two reactions:

1.Man I must be dumb I can't even begin to understand what matter

2.Can't we achieve/explain the same goal by keeping it simple stupid

tome 8 years ago | |

> 2.Can't we achieve/explain the same goal by keeping it simple stupid

We should keep it "as simple as possible but no simpler". Sometimes "as simple as possible" is actually somewhat challenging ...