Chris Penner

Luckily, that very article exists! https://chrispenner.ca/posts/wc Edit: upon reading the article it seems like the'yre different kinds of word counting. Still interesting and worth reading nevertheless!

Now we're just having a semantic argument over the word "expressiveness", which is not especially interesting; see https://chrispenner.ca/posts/expressiveness-spectrum . My argument above remains true regardless of the terms you choose to use.

https://chrispenner.ca/posts/expressiveness-spectrum has some good examples showing why one might want selectives (then continues to explore arrows https://chrispenner.ca/posts/arrow-effects )

> Why is this taken as a given to be a good thing? So that we can prove things about software more easily. If we only write stateful imperative programs, we're stuck with tons of Hoare triples and separation logic rather than being able to use equational reasoning or type-driven deductions. For example, this person wrote a parallel wc in Haskell, and they used semigroups to parallelize the word counting. https://chrispenner.ca/posts/wc

I'm experimenting with this for client-server design in game development, to ensure that the clients are in sync with the server: since the only way to change the game state is through events, I (as a developer) am unable to forget to implement some notification for something that happens. This also gets me match replays as an extra. I came across the Update Monad [1] while researching how to use Event Sourcing in functional languages: it basically has the same guarantees of only changing the state through recorded events. Beware though, as it can be quite slow if implemented naively. [1]: https://chrispenner.ca/posts/update-monad

Yes, there are a number of them. Here are some examples off the top of my head: - Moggi was studying the problem of equivalence of programs, and noted that the traditional approach to modeling a program as a total function Input -> Output is problematic. He pioneered the use of monads and Kleisli categories as a foundation for reasoning about equivalence of real programs, including all the real-world nastiness like non-termination, partiality (e.g. throwing an exception that kills the program), non-determinism, and so on. https://person.dibris.unige.it/moggi-eugenio/ftp/lics89.pdf - Linear logic (and it's close relative affine logic) was the inspiration behind Rust's ownership model, from what I understand. Linear logic was originally described in terms of the sequent calculus by Girard (http://girard.perso.math.cnrs.fr/linear.pdf), but later work used certain categories as a model of linear logic (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/files/SeelyLinearLogic.pdf). This answered and clarified a number of questions stemming from Girard's original work. - Cartesian-closed categories (CCCs) form models of the simply-typed lambda calculus, in the sense that any lambda term can be interpreted as a value in a CCC. Conal Elliott pointed out that this means that a lambda term doesn't have just one natural meaning; it can be given a multitude of meanings by interpreting the same term in different CCCs. He shows how to use this idea to "interpret" a program into a circuit that implements the…