Stop pretending studying arrow theory improves your apping

Given two functors S,T:C→B, a natural transformation τ:S→T is a function which assigns to each object c of C an arrow τ_c=τc:Sc→TC of B in such a way that every arrow f:c→c' in C yields a diagram
ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠτc
c ﾠﾠ Sc---→Tc
|ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|
|fﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠSf↓ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ↓Tf
↓ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠﾠτc'ﾠﾠ|
c', ﾠﾠﾠ Sc'--→Tc'

which is commutative. When this holds, we also say that τ_c=τc:Sc→Tc is natural in c. If we think of the functor S as giving a picture in B of (all the objects and arrows of) C, then a natural transformation τ is the set of arrows mapping (or, translating) the picture S to the picture T, with all squares (and parallelograms!) like that above commutative:
ﾠaﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠSa----------→Ta
ﾠ|ﾠ╲fﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ ﾠ|ﾠ╲Sfﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠ╲Tf
ﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠ↘ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠ↘ﾠﾠﾠτbﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠ↘
ﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠbﾠﾠﾠﾠ ﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠﾠSb----------→Tb
ﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠ╱ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠ╱ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ|ﾠﾠﾠ╱
↓ﾠ↙ﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ ﾠ↓↙Sgﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠ↓ﾠ↙Tg
ﾠcﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠﾠSc----------→Tc

>>34
You can add numbers in OCaml. It doesn't do implicit conversions for you because that is some weakass shit right there.

No it hasn't.

If Haskell sucks so hard you need to deny reality to support your choice that's your problem.

I don't get why people even bother with Haskell when things like Idris exists. You might as well take advantage of the code inference and so on.