cats VS Shapeless

A functional programming library: https://typelevel.org/cats/

Learn something that pays the bill first - nowadays it's Golang/Rust react/typescript. Then you can try some pure fp libs like fp-ts and fp-core.rs, and look through existing scala cats docs. If you'll feel bad about it - that's totally fine and expectable, fp takes a paradigm shift and not that many dev able to shift their brains way of thought due to basic psychological rigidity) (inability to change habits and to modify concepts/attitudes once developed). And that's purely a staffing and management issue - folks hired randoms out of the blue, and called 'em a team.

I'm sorry, but have you ever done functional programming for a real company, like in a functional programming language like Haskell, Scala, or F#? Have you ever used Scala cats or scalaz? Have you ever learned category theory and how to apply its abstractions in software? Listen u/judethedude2106 this person hasn't gone as far down the functional programming rabbit hole as I have. Beyond learning the basics like the difference between pure and impure functions, what are closures, what higher order functions are and the most common ones like .map, .filter, and .flatmap, the immutable collections like immutable linked lists and trees, and what a Monad is and common monads like those used for futures/promises, async programming, and Option (Some or None, which is used instead of null checking), the more advanced functional programming stuff like category theory based abstractions are totally useless for real jobs and is just a giant time suck. Don't waste years on functional programming, spend at most a few months on it and no more.

As a former functional programmer in Scala, please do not go deep into the Category Theory programming. Scala has libraries like this one called "Cats", a cute shortened name for "Category Theory", but code that makes heavy use of these constructs is not understandable to other programmers. Other than using Monads as a design pattern for things like Options (which can be "Some" or "None"), Futures or Promises (which is used for asynchronous programming), and a few other things, please do not make heavy use of category theory constructs in real programming projects that will have other developers working on them. It is a rabbit hole that may be fun but is not super practical. Sure, write pure functions without side effects, but do not use the words "Bimonad", "Invariant Monoidal", and "Semigroup" in your code. The most common, practical application/use of functional programming is basic things like closures, .map, .filter, maybe chaining maps with like a .flatmap or whatever your programming language uses instead of chain or flatmap, and SQL that uses keywords like WHERE which can be represented in code by using a call to .filter. Like the place where these constructs are used most is in data processing like with SQL, ETL (Extract Transform, Load) jobs, Java's MapReduce on Hadoop, Scala's Apache Spark, and other data processing type things. Haskell is not a popular programming language in real world projects for a number of reasons and one of them is the heavy and sometimes impractical use of Category Theory.

At a previous job of mine we actually had an entirely pure Scala ecosystem using cats which instead uses typeclasses, referential transparency, and other FP concepts as the foundations for how to code. So a lot of flexibility to the language.

Thanks! It's used heavily here

I did work in Scala for a few years. We employed Cats[1], and even a bit of Matryoshka[2] though most of the work I do today is in Python.

Nowadays I think about computational requirements in terms of relations among behavioral dependencies. Like, "I want to perform operation O on input A and return a B. To do this, I'll need a way to a -> b and a way to b -> b -> b." I often pass these behavioral dependencies in as arguments and it tends to make the inner core of my programs pretty abstract and built up as layers of specificity.

Zooming out nearly all the way, it makes me feel tethered in a qualitatively unique way to certain deep truths of the universe. In a Platonic sense, invoking certain ideas like a monad make me feel like I'm approaching the divine or at least one instantiation of a timeless universal that operates outside of material existence.

I'd imagine some mathematicians might see the universe in a similar way - one where immortal relations between ontological forms exist beyond time and space and at the same time can be threaded through the material world by intellectual observation and when those two meet a beautiful collision occurs.

1. https://typelevel.org/cats/

2. https://github.com/precog/matryoshka

Our second type class example attempted to illustrate one last perk: type safety at compile time. It did so with a simplified example of the cats core library for type safety equality comparison between objects. If you're not familiar with cats, go ahead and give it go.

3) Finally, Scala 3 + cats is a great middle ground. It's a great language to teach and learn FP, even if you learn by yourself, without support from other people. There are lots of materials and even if you get stuck with a concept, you can still implement it using what you knew before.

Scala 2-only: * Shapeless (there is Shapeless for Scala 3 but less often needed as basic things are in Scala 3)

I know that libraries like Scodec and shapeless were rewritten practically from scratch for Scala 3, taking advantage of the next syntax and internals, as well as protoquill - a Scala 3 implementation of Quill.

please show me something like this: https://akka.io/ or this: https://zio.dev/ or this: https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless

That largely depends on the type system. Languages like Haskell and Scala which have much more powerful type systems than C/Java/Go/etc absolutely do allow you to do those sorts of things. It is a bit harder to wrap your head around to be sure and there are some rough edges, but once you get the hang of it you can get the benefits of static typing with the flexibility of dynamic typing. See https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless or a project that I've been working on a lot lately https://github.com/zio/zio-schema.

Just use cats and use the apply syntax .mapN for this. Seriously. There isn't a way to do it without generating source code that I can see in the api. Scala 3's HList Tuples aren't like Shapeless 2's HLists and I can't figure out a way in the api to reduce the tuple members down from (A, B, C, D) into an E, generically, yet with Scala 3 poly functions, unlike what you could do in Shapeless 2 with HList

Scala has sparked a huge ecosystem of very high quality libraries (Cats, Scalaz, shapeless, to name but a few). I think a major reason for this is that Scala attracts developers who value the advantages of the JVM, but are fed up with the limitations of the Java programming language and understand the benefits of an expressive type system and functional programming.

I also investigated shapeless3 macroses: https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/tree/shapeless-3/modules, but they are more about derivation than reflection. And probably that is all I found.

I'm not sure where is the line between extensive and basic knowledge. Here is my more detailed exposure:

In commercial context:

* Of strongly typed ones only Scala (with [shapeless]). Can reluctantly throw in Kotlin as well for it's amazing structured concurrency.

In non-commercial context:

* Went through a few chapters of [Software Foundations] doing Coq proofs.

* Worked through most of the [Types and Programming Languages] (writing typecheckers in Ocaml)

* 3 services in Haskell (1 on Scotty, 2 on Servant). Loved persistent+esqueleto for the ORM layer, disliked Opaleye.

* 2 projects in PureScript (1 with Halogen, 1 with React bindings).

* 1 project in ReasonML (Ocaml).

-

> I am afraid there is no way back for me

I see where you are coming from. In my case I can alternate between "I want all invariants properly expressed and checked" and "I just want to ship that barely-working piece of junk and iterate on it". I learned to adjust depending on organization needs. IMO, for many orgs, especially startups/scaleups, the latter is often the more fitting way. With that in mind, I'm willing to trade the guiding hand of great type systems for other productivity aspects (amazing runtime and cohesive web framework in Elixir's case).

[shapeless]: https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless

[Software Foundations]: https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/

[Types and Programming Languages]: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/