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

>>40
So? You're confusing addition with the + symbol. And you're confusing Haskell syntax with OCaml syntax. By that token, Haskell can't even do bit shift operations:

Prelude> 1 << 2

<interactive>:2:3: Not in scope: `<<'

Useless.

>>41
No I'm not. In OCaml, addition is performed with the (+) function. My point is that addition in OCaml does not work with all conventional numeric types, it only works with integers. That's what I meant by the words "OCaml does not support the addition of numbers".

And you know what? You haven't made a single argumented post. I've had enough of your bullshit, this conversation is over.

>>42

That's what I meant by the words "OCaml does not support the addition of numbers".

Maybe you should have said what you meant instead of something obviously false. What you meant is still wrong, but at least its almost subtly wrong.

And you know what? You haven't made a single argumented post.

It took you long enough to notice! The sad thing is it's not because I'm trolling, it's because you're spouting nonsense and generating huff by backpedaling every time I call bullshit.

>>43
Didn't even read your shit. Fuck you.

>>44
Isn't this the part where you bump a lot of older threads to bury this one, dubs-kun?

you guys are awfully stupid

prime get

Fuck I love Haskell. Really.

You will join an expert team in London, and demonstrable experience in typed FP (Haskell, OCaml, F# etc) is required. We have around 2.5 million lines of Haskell, and our own Haskell compiler. In this context we look for skill and taste in typed functional programming to capture and abstract over complex, messy systems.

To all those retards who say Haskell is not useful in production: take it up the ass.

This is a “front office” finance role – meaning you will work on the trading floor, directly with traders, building software to automate their work and improve their efficiency. The role is highly development focused, and you will use Haskell for almost all tasks: data analysis, market data publishing, database access, web services, desktop GUIs, large parallel tasks, quantitative models, solvers, everything. This is a fast paced role – code you write today will be deployed within hours to hundreds of users and has to work.

>>48
Sounds stressful.

>>48

our own Haskell compiler […] messy systems

That sounds like Haskell alright.

>>48
Pure finance is one of those sectors where you'll be hard-pressed to convince people that it actually counts as being in production. It's one thing to have running code that does something, but just like academia, that "something" is purely representative and not actually useful or meaningful to what happens in real life. The financial sector as we know it today is 90% sleight of hand, lying to people and passing money around in a shell game to hide it from your own "customers." It's the same thing Hollywood has been doing since the 1930s to invent massive profits and pay none of the costs, only this time the public doesn't even get anything back as a side effect of their dirty lies.

Haskell, as a language, is of exactly the same character, so it's perfectly suited to the thieves and circus clowns in the financial sector. A real programmer wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

>>51
Too fat. If code has users that pay for it, then it's production. No exceptions.

Try to troll more delicately next time.

>>48

Yeah that sounds like no matter how much they pay you they won't be paying you enough.

and our own Haskell compiler

How ridiculous.

and our own dubs

How ridiculous.

Covariant anii