I have an MA in mathematics but without knowing category theory, it has been opaque to me till just now that the monoids discussed around Haskel are the same beast I briefly dealt with in abstract algebra. Indeed, only by looking up monoid and appendable did this become semi-evident.
The Haskellians don't even help you out enough to point towards ordinary abstract but instead send you all the way to category theory with sign-posts along the way.
The abstract structure monoid may not really be fully described by appendable but it's a leg-up. The objects in object-orientation get extended by convenience but the term object still helps the learner feel like they've got something concrete.
Lots of examples there, including a post by Dan Piponi that says, right at the beginning, "In Haskell, a monoid is a type with a rule for how two elements of that type can be combined to make another element of the same type. To be a monoid there also needs to be an element that you can think of as representing 'nothing' in the sense that when it's combined with other elements it leaves the other element unchanged.
"
I don't know how you can construe that as "The Haskellians don't even help you out enough to point towards ordinary abstract but instead send you all the way to category theory with sign-posts along the way."
I have an MA in mathematics but without knowing category theory, it has been opaque to me till just now that the monoids discussed around Haskel are the same beast I briefly dealt with in abstract algebra. Indeed, only by looking up monoid and appendable did this become semi-evident.
The Haskellians don't even help you out enough to point towards ordinary abstract but instead send you all the way to category theory with sign-posts along the way.
The abstract structure monoid may not really be fully described by appendable but it's a leg-up. The objects in object-orientation get extended by convenience but the term object still helps the learner feel like they've got something concrete.