[throw_away_8080]

Category theory has very hard definitions and not many theorems. Would not recommend. It has Grand Unified Theory vibes so pseudo intellectuals have a hard on for it.

Don't waste your time trying to understand people who write to make themselves sound smart. You aren't missing out on anything.

Here is a recent article from TOPLAS, imo a top programming language journal. No category theory here...

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564619

[lightbendover]

In my sole experience working at a company (startup) that embraced those who understood category theory, those types were not the ones producing any discernible value for the company. They instead attempted to browbeat certain thinking into others at the expense of their focus. I'm a fan of "sane FP," but the pseudo-intellects left a horrible taste in my mouth on the subject of the underlying math that I very likely will never recover from.

[throw_away_8080]

I want to clarify, I am not trivializing the work of category theorist. It is a field of mathematics which provides a useful framework for algebraic geometers and algebraic topologists, and has even been fruitfully applied outside of math.

A personal favorite of CT generalizing an existing idea is in knot theory the khovanov homology detects the unknot, which is an amazing feat for a knot invariant. Bar Natan covers the construction well: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0201043

However for some reason this particular field of math is a lightning rod for quacks. I don't really know why, but that is the way things are now.

[deterministic]

Agree 100%. CT is fun if you like abstract mathematics. But it is not a practical useful tool for developing software. A much better choice would be “Software Foundations”. Now that is also hyper abstract math but useful for developing real world software. As demonstrated with the CompCert and seL4 projects. Even pro mathematicians are starting to dive on (see the LEAN mathlib project for example).