The category design pattern
This is wonderful, and correct, theory. As the Futurama joke goes, "you are technically correct; the best kind of correct."What the Haskell community keeps running into is that most people don't think in theories. Trying to prove the theory to be practical has a poor success rate. They need to implement useful things that people love, then show how the theory got them there naturally.Sentences like this:> Category theory codifies this compositional style into a design pattern, the category.To the average person, a theory codifying a style into a pattern just isn't useful. What does that do? Monads are a common joke to this effect. They are wonderfully useful but poorly understood by most developers. It isn't being right that matters if few understand you.Why was Rails successful?Sure Ruby is nice, but Python is very similar (and it wasn't the `do...end` blocks.)It's because Rails could be used to easily build functional CRUD apps — Whoops! it works — that made difficult easy. Sandy Metz doesn't get heard if DHH isn't building Basecamp.As a philosopher, it pains me to know people don't think that way, but if you aren't changing people's lives then all the theory is just mental masturbation.