Knolx Session: Category Theory In Scala

3 thoughts on “Knolx Session: Category Theory In Scala1 min read”

1. I think I need to see scala and java examples side by side to fully understand this.
   f:A => B to me is the same as “public B f(A) { … }” and I don’t get why that needs a name.
   I don’t understand what I can do with the scala version that I can’t already do with the java version. It seems like really smart people are inventing really clever constructs that do nothing new except make those really smart people look even smarter. (It reminds me of the tendency for lawyer’s to craft laws with wording that only they can understand so you need to spend $400/hr to get simple things done). On the one hand we say KISS and other we say if can’t learn scala then you’re probably not a very good developer.

   1. Howard, thanks for reading the post. The idea is to get a basic idea of Category Theory and am sure that you will find many links on java as well.
      Remember that Scala is different than java in many ways. It is also a functional language in the sense that Functions are first class citizens and can have separate existence out of an object. That means you can toss them around like objects in Java. You will appreciate the difference between f:A => B and “public B f(A) { … }” then.

      I want to steer away from the debate of Scala is tough and too complex to develop and maintain. That was probably the discussion an year back for us. My take on this is that unless we try this for some time ourselves we cannot come to appreciate it. We chose Scala for couple of products and want to tell you that its great! Maybe if you haven’t tried give one chance to it 🙂

      Yes I also believe in keeping things simple and we often discuss to differentiate between “Simple and Easy” and take steps to choose former than the latter.

2. excellent points altogether, you just won a brand
   new reader. What may you suggest in regards to your submit that you made a few days ago?
   Any sure?

Comments are closed.