Category theory

theory
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21387/whats-the-relation-between-oop-and-category-theory There are absolutely some relationships between the semantics and practice of OOP and category theory. This is somewhat unsurprising since both fields attempt to give a principled generic account of structure and behavior in a synthetic manner. The most apparent work I am aware of is the categorical semantics of UML, which is admittedly different from OOP in the large, but I think captures much of the crux of the debate on the semantics of objects themselves. One example is Zinovy Diskin's Mathematics of UML

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/11/24/types-and-functions/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1e8gqXLbsU&list=RDLVjBkO1eerU8A&index=10  monads

generic programming
metaphorical wordsalad:' ".... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_programming#Example The disadvantage of this fine-grained control is a complicated syntax, but, because all generic formal parameters are completely defined in the specification, the compiler can instantiate generics without looking at the body of the generic....."

From the premise that translating data is your only goal within a system that is fundamentally about the management of state(to prevent unpredicable behaviour), this complicated syntax of restricted global state is only possible to translate back into pseudo local state for mathematicians speaking category theory. Speaking Sanskrit and English doesn't make you a genius, it makes you bilingual. For the native speaker of categoreez there isn't anything complicated about functions written in terms of types late binded with a void pointer. Programming in types is using a secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher to decrypt metaphorical wordsalad into graph morphisms.

The more obvious it becomes that the opening paragraph from wikipedia is meaningless gargoyle, the more the "software engineers" psyops you into hiding your dumbfoundness so you don't look stupid, No true Scotsman fallacy.

links
oop