It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- All Categories 2.3K
- Chat 499
- Study Groups 19
- Petri Nets 9
- Epidemiology 4
- Leaf Modeling 1
- Review Sections 9
- MIT 2020: Programming with Categories 51
- MIT 2020: Lectures 20
- MIT 2020: Exercises 25
- MIT 2019: Applied Category Theory 339
- MIT 2019: Lectures 79
- MIT 2019: Exercises 149
- MIT 2019: Chat 50
- UCR ACT Seminar 4
- General 67
- Azimuth Code Project 110
- Statistical methods 4
- Drafts 2
- Math Syntax Demos 15
- Wiki - Latest Changes 3
- Strategy 113
- Azimuth Project 1.1K
- - Spam 1
- News and Information 147
- Azimuth Blog 149
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 713

Options

## Comments

Great! I don't really program so much, so I found it very strange when I first started reading about monads in Haskell... I was perfectly familiar and comfortable with monads in algebra, topology and other subjects, but computer scientists talk about them a very different way than mathematicians: it made a familiar subject seem unfamiliar again! By now I basically get the idea... but not through direct experience of programming.

I urge everyone who likes programming and is interested in category theory to read this:

Category Theory for Programmers.`Great! I don't really program so much, so I found it very strange when I first started reading about monads in Haskell... I was perfectly familiar and comfortable with monads in algebra, topology and other subjects, but computer scientists talk about them a very different way than mathematicians: it made a familiar subject seem unfamiliar again! By now I basically get the idea... but not through direct experience of programming. I urge everyone who likes programming and is interested in category theory to read this: * Bartosz Mileweski, _[Category Theory for Programmers](https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-programmers-the-preface/)_.`