5 ms·
The site seems to be down, so here's the entire post pulled from Google Reader. Note that the author is a Haskell and Scala programmer, and his point is very d
by mbrubeck 17y ago
The site seems to be down, so here's the entire post pulled from Google Reader. Note that the author is a Haskell and Scala programmer, and his point is very different than you might think from just the headline out of context:
----
Because there is no such thing as a big application. There is only bigger or smaller. This is a central tenet of functional programming. “Big application” is a euphemism for “My idea of programming does not scale beyond this point.” You don’t realise how much information you give away when you ask this question.
So can we can stop with the piffle and get one with the interesting and important stuff? Ta.
----
- mbrubeck 17y agoMy reaction: Functional programming fits well with both the Unix philosophy and the web architecture. When your modules/functions do not share mutable state, there's often no reason to smoosh them all into one huge program. Portions of Amazon and Google are written in functional languages or styles, but in a well-designed system you often end up with many smaller programs and no larger ones. Also, there's no strict requirement for one program to be in the same language as any other. "Big" should never be a goal in programming.