Hi Arnaud,<div><br></div><div>I'm not the best person to answer this question, and I'm not certain this constitutes an answer, but you might be interested in Conal Elliott's paper "Denotational design with type class morphisms" available at <a href="http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/">http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/</a>.</div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>Sebastien</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Arnaud Bailly <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arnaud.oqube@gmail.com">arnaud.oqube@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">(2nd try, took my gloves off...)<br>
Hello Café,<br>
I have been fascinated by Cat. theory for quite a few years now, as<br>
most people who get close to it I think.<br>
<br>
I am a developer, working mostly in Java for my living and dabbling<br>
with haskell and scala in my spare time and assuming the frustration<br>
of having to live in an imperative word. More often than not, I find<br>
myself trying to use constructs from FP in my code, mostly simple<br>
closures and typical data types (eg. Maybe, Either...). I have read<br>
with a lot of interest FPS (<a href="http://homepages.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~tk/fps/" target="_blank">http://homepages.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~tk/fps/</a>)<br>
which exposes a number of OO patterns inspired by FP.<br>
<br>
Are there works/thesis/books/articles/blogs that try to use Cat.<br>
theory explicitly as a tool/language for designing software (not as an<br>
underlying formalisation or semantics)? Is the question even<br>
meaningful?<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance,<br>
Arnaud<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>