3 ms·
The author explained that purely functional development is hard to do in his first posting. I don't understand the point of his follow-up; all he says is there'
by icey 17y ago
The author explained that purely functional development is hard to do in his first posting. I don't understand the point of his follow-up; all he says is there's some magical barrier in which functional programming is suddenly okay, and that magical barrier is somewhere between 98% and 85% on the mystical "functional programming is hard, let's go shopping" scale.
- statictype 17y agoI don't know why you're taking his post so literally. Forget about the 98 and 85 numbers. The point of the follow-up was to merely say that functional programming works as long as you don't try to rigorously and dogmatically apply it to everything. There's a sweet spot where most of your code is functional but you also allow certain inconsistencies in, in order to make the whole system palatable. This was actually what he was trying to say in his first post, but he didn't really get it across clearly, hence, the follow-up.