Re:A Path to Enlightenment in Programming Language Theory
by ihm on Monday June 22, 2015 @06:28PM
(#9761611)
> In other sub-fields (e.g. OO, logic programming and concurrency), category theory has not so far proven terribly useful.
I wouldn't say that. I don't know about OO and logic programming, but there's a good amount of categorical/homotopical structure lurking around concurrency. See for example [1], [2] or [3].
[1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.46.9...
[2] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2108154_A_model_cate...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_algebraic_topology
Re:A Path to Enlightenment in Programming Language Theory
by mafribe on Tuesday June 23, 2015 @04:11AM
(#9763254)
You mean Goubault-style homotopy stuff. I don't this this is very categorical, e.g. [2] produces a single category, so I wouldn't call this an example of categorical structure.
The Gunawardena paper [1] doesn't exhibit categorical structure either.
To that caveat, I'd like to add that neither Rotman nor Birkhoff/MacLane are ideal places to start learning algebra. There are plenty of gentler, more modern books. In terms of tomes that are available online, I can recommend Shoup's "A Computational Introduction to Number Theory and Algebra" [1].
As an aside, note that category theory is used only in the part of programming language research that is about (pure) functional programming. In other sub-fields (e.g. OO, logic programming and concurrency), category theory has not so far proven terribly useful.
[1] http://shoup.net/ntb/