amen zwa, esq.<p>There are many <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/CategoryTheory" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>CategoryTheory</span></a> textbooks with <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/programmer" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>programmer</span></a> or <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/programming" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>programming</span></a> in their titles. Invariably, they all start out with the precise definitions of categories, limits, colimits, functors, natural transformations, adjunctions, presheaves, .... Then, in the last page of the last section of the last chapter, they make vague references to programming language semantics, rather purfunctorily (CAUTION: that English word is not related to CT functor, profunctor, and the like).</p><p>No, not <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/Bartosz" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Bartosz</span></a>'s guidebook, "Category Theory for Programmers". This one is, true to its title, for programmers.</p><p><a href="https://github.com/hmemcpy/milewski-ctfp-pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">github.com/hmemcpy/milewski-ct</span><span class="invisible">fp-pdf</span></a></p>