7 ms·

Probably because functional languages don't actually at excel scientific computing relative to Python, C#, Java, and JavaScript. :D Edit: I kid, but most of th

Probably because functional languages don't actually at excel scientific computing relative to Python, C#, Java, and JavaScript. :D Edit: I kid, but most of the languages I just mentioned have very fast native compilers, easy ways of invoking low-level interop, functional-style libraries if you want them, and (except for Python) C-like syntax making it easy to cut-and-paste.

tokipin 11y ago
No need to kid. Self-described "FP" languages are a pain in the ass for the type of programming scientists do. I don't even know what kind of programming those languages aren't a pain in the ass for.
- fsloth 11y ago
  "I don't even know what kind of programming those languages aren't a pain in the ass for." If we limit the discussion to ML languages, they are generally very nice e.g. for datastructure transforms (including interpreters and compilers). Static typing with type inference makes implementations short, and, if written in good style, are correct when they compile. There are various other reasons why one would not want to use them. For me it's platform stability and availability - while I enjoy functional languages in principle - I yet seem to choose C++ more often than not for my hobby projects. I would say learning self-described fp-languages have made me a better programmer who values static typing more than before.
  - restalis 11y ago
    "I would say learning self-described fp-languages have made me a better programmer who values static typing more than before." FP paradigm has indeed didactic value and the experience gained in a functional language may translate into a plus of productivity ...in other languages. When you have to get things done, the functional language's embedded arm-twisting (well, mind-twisting actually) doesn't help! That's when you'll either abandon the (idea of) "pure" functional language for a multi-paradigm language (that will allow you to keep a mainly functional style with limited deviations when the situation warrants it) or you'll keep pushing yourself and throw the blame on you for not being good enough with a language that wasn't designed from very beginning for much anything but the FP standpoint (for the sake of it).
- reverius42 11y ago
  I could make the same assertion about "self-described OOP languages" or "self-described procedural languages" with just as much evidence. Once you've done it enough, all programming feels like a pain in the ass. I see FP languages being able to excel at the kind of projects with large, maintainable codebases that evolve over a decade and are shared between dozens of developers. Service oriented architectures serve the same goal -- isolating behavior and state locally, and being explicit about mutation and state changes over time.
- hughw 11y ago
  Using Scala, I've found the ability to pass around first class functions, and the default immutability of variables, enables me to make profound algorithmic optimizations I wouldn't undertake in C++ et al. Then, if the computation generates too much garbage or goes slowly in a loop, I can then take shortcuts, like using mutable local variables, to make that section go faster.
mcepl 11y ago
Actually, if you squint a lot, R (or S) is a functional language. And it shows, crazily powerful for something, absolutely horrible for something else.
- baldfat 11y ago
  No squinting needed :) "R, at its heart, is a functional programming (FP) language. This means that it provides many tools for the creation and manipulation of functions. In particular, R has what’s known as first class functions. You can do anything with functions that you can do with vectors: you can assign them to variables, store them in lists, pass them as arguments to other functions, create them inside functions, and even return them as the result of a function." http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Functional-programming.html http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Functional-programming.html
  - makeset 11y ago
    Yeah, lots of squinting needed, or a terribly shallow understanding of FP to say that. Merely providing first-class functions and map/reduce idioms does not a functional language make. Python has those, so is it also FP really? R is as much a FP language as Haskell or OCaml are imperative "at heart."
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Sorry to STRONGLY disagree with you 100% but R clearly is a functional language and it might just be that you are unfamiliar with R or have not spent time with R. Weak example is Wikipedia list of Functional Programming Languages list R as one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming#R https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming#R R describes itself as a Functional programming Language: The language syntax has a superficial similarity with C, but the semantics are of the FPL (functional programming language) variety with stronger affinities with Lisp and APL. In particular, it allows “computing on the language”, which in turn makes it possible to write functions that take expressions as input, something that is often useful for statistical modeling and graphics. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html Academic Evidence: "The Journal Trends in Functional Programming" also list R as a functional programming language. R is an environment and functional programming language for statistical data analysis and visualization. Largely unknown to the functional programming community, it is popular and influential in many empirical sciences. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-40447-4_12 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-40447-4... The issue might be it isn't Haskel so it is not 100% functional but there are more Functional Programming Languages then Haskel. PS This is why so many programs in R are poorly written because people try to force OO into R when they could do things Functional. That is also why my eyes bleed when I see people looping through everything in their R scripts.

tokipin 11y ago

No need to kid. Self-described "FP" languages are a pain in the ass for the type of programming scientists do. I don't even know what kind of programming those languages aren't a pain in the ass for.

fsloth 11y ago
"I don't even know what kind of programming those languages aren't a pain in the ass for." If we limit the discussion to ML languages, they are generally very nice e.g. for datastructure transforms (including interpreters and compilers). Static typing with type inference makes implementations short, and, if written in good style, are correct when they compile. There are various other reasons why one would not want to use them. For me it's platform stability and availability - while I enjoy functional languages in principle - I yet seem to choose C++ more often than not for my hobby projects. I would say learning self-described fp-languages have made me a better programmer who values static typing more than before.
- restalis 11y ago
  "I would say learning self-described fp-languages have made me a better programmer who values static typing more than before." FP paradigm has indeed didactic value and the experience gained in a functional language may translate into a plus of productivity ...in other languages. When you have to get things done, the functional language's embedded arm-twisting (well, mind-twisting actually) doesn't help! That's when you'll either abandon the (idea of) "pure" functional language for a multi-paradigm language (that will allow you to keep a mainly functional style with limited deviations when the situation warrants it) or you'll keep pushing yourself and throw the blame on you for not being good enough with a language that wasn't designed from very beginning for much anything but the FP standpoint (for the sake of it).
reverius42 11y ago
I could make the same assertion about "self-described OOP languages" or "self-described procedural languages" with just as much evidence. Once you've done it enough, all programming feels like a pain in the ass. I see FP languages being able to excel at the kind of projects with large, maintainable codebases that evolve over a decade and are shared between dozens of developers. Service oriented architectures serve the same goal -- isolating behavior and state locally, and being explicit about mutation and state changes over time.
hughw 11y ago
Using Scala, I've found the ability to pass around first class functions, and the default immutability of variables, enables me to make profound algorithmic optimizations I wouldn't undertake in C++ et al. Then, if the computation generates too much garbage or goes slowly in a loop, I can then take shortcuts, like using mutable local variables, to make that section go faster.

mcepl 11y ago

Actually, if you squint a lot, R (or S) is a functional language. And it shows, crazily powerful for something, absolutely horrible for something else.

baldfat 11y ago
No squinting needed :) "R, at its heart, is a functional programming (FP) language. This means that it provides many tools for the creation and manipulation of functions. In particular, R has what’s known as first class functions. You can do anything with functions that you can do with vectors: you can assign them to variables, store them in lists, pass them as arguments to other functions, create them inside functions, and even return them as the result of a function." http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Functional-programming.html http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Functional-programming.html
- makeset 11y ago
  Yeah, lots of squinting needed, or a terribly shallow understanding of FP to say that. Merely providing first-class functions and map/reduce idioms does not a functional language make. Python has those, so is it also FP really? R is as much a FP language as Haskell or OCaml are imperative "at heart."
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Sorry to STRONGLY disagree with you 100% but R clearly is a functional language and it might just be that you are unfamiliar with R or have not spent time with R. Weak example is Wikipedia list of Functional Programming Languages list R as one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming#R https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming#R R describes itself as a Functional programming Language: The language syntax has a superficial similarity with C, but the semantics are of the FPL (functional programming language) variety with stronger affinities with Lisp and APL. In particular, it allows “computing on the language”, which in turn makes it possible to write functions that take expressions as input, something that is often useful for statistical modeling and graphics. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-lang.html Academic Evidence: "The Journal Trends in Functional Programming" also list R as a functional programming language. R is an environment and functional programming language for statistical data analysis and visualization. Largely unknown to the functional programming community, it is popular and influential in many empirical sciences. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-40447-4_12 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-40447-4... The issue might be it isn't Haskel so it is not 100% functional but there are more Functional Programming Languages then Haskel. PS This is why so many programs in R are poorly written because people try to force OO into R when they could do things Functional. That is also why my eyes bleed when I see people looping through everything in their R scripts.