3 ms·
I'm guessing that in an actual interview Yegge would be sympathetic to your point of view: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-noun
by raganwald 17y ago
I'm guessing that in an actual interview Yegge would be sympathetic to your point of view:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...
That being said, here's a question: How many people who self-identify as functional programmers could write an OO program competently? Compare and contrast to the question of how many people who self-identify as OO programmers could write a functional progam competently?
Do the paradigms themselves have anything to do with the difference? Or is this strictly an issue of bias for other reasons?
- smanek 17y agoI would guess that almost all functional programmers know OO programming, but very few OO programmers know functional programming. I think this is just because of pedagogic issues. Every introductory book/class introduces OO, but most undergraduate CS courses barely discuss functional programming (besides a semester on ML or Scheme, if you're particularly lucky). So, the people who go out off the beaten path to learn functional programming are a self selected subset that is particularly driven, curious, etc.
- raganwald 17y agoThat would be my conjecture about academia. In business, a certain kind of person learns the languages and paradigms that appear to be well-represented in monster.com job postings.
- wingo 17y agoI do self-identify as a functional programmer, and when I have to write an OO solution to a problem, I often get it wrong. Less wrong when I'm working with a more common idiom (like a tree of widgets), more wrong when I'm striking out into the wild. In my personal (non-work) work, I don't do objects at all. I just don't find that stateful solutions sit right with me.