4 ms·
Which is of course a straw man. Find me a credible FP proponent that would disagree with that point? Yes, bad code is possible in any language or paradigm. We
by KirinDave 10y ago
Which is of course a straw man. Find me a credible FP proponent that would disagree with that point?
Yes, bad code is possible in any language or paradigm. We don't judge languages by their worst examples. We never have expected FP to magically solve all problems. Heck, this disclaimer exists in a slightly different form even in the Backus paper!
I don't understand the point of this article either.
- twblalock 10y ago> Find me a credible FP proponent that would disagree with that point? What distinguishes a credible FP proponent from a non-credible one? This is getting close to the territory of the no true scotsman fallacy. If someone makes the argument, it's not a strawman. It doesn't matter if you consider them credible or not. The author of the article responded to a real argument made by real people.
- KirinDave 10y agoWho? Who has made this argument? What actually is the argument? FP literature is full of this admonition. FP papers constantly cite the primary benefits of FP and it's not the functionality. Who specifically is he arguing against? You cite "no true Scotsman" but we lack even a false one to point to.
- twblalock 10y agoYou wrote: > Find me a credible FP proponent that would disagree with that point? By including the word "credible," you are pre-emptively excluding some FP proponents as not being "true" FP proponents. So you've already committed yourself to applying the fallacy to evidence that anyone might present to you.
- KirinDave 10y agoLet me actually commit a logical fallacy before I have to own up to one. Don't worry, I'm sure it won't take very long. But this pre-emptive strike thing is just a way to avoid providing any sort of example, I suspect.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]