> The author is one of the main sources of Category Theory for Programmers material. Take that as you will.
I'm having some trouble coming up with plausible inferences from that fact. Do you mean to imply that "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"?
Pretty much. Bartosz's posts are pretty much exclusively about the superiority of Haskell and functional programming, with occasional forays into C++ to explain a functional concept in a more familiar syntax.
The realization at the end of your post is what the author is trying to get people to reach about software.
The category theory for programmers crowd argue that categorical diagrams (annotated graphs) are the right way to reason about software to gain insights — and the rest is describing the equivalence between functions in a type theory and maps in a category.
Your mental model of directed graphs is a functional model.
Your mental model of directed graphs is a functional model.
In the more general sense that may be true, but I was talking about Factorio specifically, where I'm using the graph representation to do the analysis.
Or rather, just because a functional interpretation exists doesn't mean I actually reach for the toolkit filed in my memory in the box labeled "functional stuff". In practice I mostly reach for the boxes I've filed away under "linear algebra", "graph theory", and "circuit design", which aren't things I typically reach for when I'm actually doing functional programming.
I'm having some trouble coming up with plausible inferences from that fact. Do you mean to imply that "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"?