Functional Programming Jargon

May be worth to mention a 'Functor' in OCaml is a different kind of beast than the 'Functor' explained in this article (which is ~ the Haskell Functor type-class).

I assume @hemanth is happy for the project README to appear on the blog of a recruitment agency. Along with the rest of the blogs that seem to be copy pasted from the original location. Should I guess functional-works obtained permission from all the original copyright holders?

I think the jump from &#x27;Category&#x27; to &#x27;Value: Anything that can be assigned to a variable.&#x27; was a somewhat jarring change in abstraction level.<p>Also, trying to explain Monad, Comonad, or Applicative as &#x27;jargon&#x27; is probably a step too far IMO. They are not important for getting started with FP, and describing them without their equational properties is kind of meaningless.<p>That being said I liked alot of the inclusions; partial application, closure, composition. I think the collection is probably slightly guilty of trying to be too clever by including advanced concepts.

Found two bugs with the page (in case a developer is reading this thread)<p>I clicked on any topic in the list and it just scrolled me to the top of the page. (Mac OS + Chrome latest &#x2F; Safari latest)<p>Also if you refresh the page with a url which has a #link in it it will reload with an empty-ish content.

The contents links all go back to the top of the page.

&gt; Lifting is when you take a value and put it into an object like a functor.<p>It should probably say:<p>&gt; Lifting is when you take a function and make a version of it that operates on functors &#x2F; applicatives.

&gt; <i>&quot;Since these rules govern composition at very abstract level, category theory is great at uncovering new ways of composing things.&quot;</i><p>I understood this much already prior. What I&#x27;d like next now are at least a handful (half-dozen-or-so) of concrete and truly compelling examples of such &quot;uncoverings&quot; ;)<p>OK, 1 or 2 would also be a start

Gotta love it when “Category Theory for Programmers” is provided as a further reading link on a very introductory article.

Does anyone know of similar github repos &#x2F; websites that describe things (does not have to be fp) by providing code &#x2F; math examples ?

Page doesn&#x27;t display in Kindernet Exploder. All you see is a header and a footer and no content inbetween.

Loved the concise explanations of the What. A nice extension of this would be the Why, something I usually struggle to understand. Currying as an example, I&#x27;m none the wiser as to why it&#x27;s a preferable way of composing a function and it&#x27;s arguments, or when either is applicable.

It&#x27;s interesting how simple and understandable now these concepts are with JS. I couldn&#x27;t imagine a language written in 7 days ending up with ability to handle all this.

Anyone have any insight as to why they call `bind&#x2F;flatmap` `chain` instead of just `flatmap` (given `bind` is already taken in JS)?

Really nice.<p>Small suggestion: It would be really nice if the table of contents allowed me to click to the section itself.

My biggest request would be to add &quot;map&quot; to the list, precisely because it&#x27;s ambiguous. It could mean:<p>1) any key&#x2F;value data structure<p>2) a hashmap, specifically<p>3) a function that runs on each element of an array to make a new array

Looks like the article on Works Hub was copied &amp; pasted from the original source on GitHub, as others have mentioned in subthreads. Would be great if we could update the article link to the primary source to give the many contributors credit.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;hemanth&#x2F;functional-programming-jargon" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;hemanth&#x2F;functional-programming-jargon</a>

I know this is off topic, but I <i>really</i> wish pages wouldn&#x27;t hide content behind JavaScript. The page I see would work just as well as just HTML with a little CSS styling.

Correction: Haskell jargon. The continued conflation of Haskell and functional programming as a whole annoys me greatly. (The majority of functional programming is not statically typed! Clojure and the other lisps are far more widely used than Haskell and the MLs, not even to mention that basically every language has first-class functions now.)