4 ms·

> Nobody is arguing that FP code is automatically good by virtue of being written in an FP-oriented language. People do say that, so it's not a strawman. > I

> Nobody is arguing that FP code is automatically good by virtue of being written in an FP-oriented language. People do say that, so it's not a strawman. > I do agree with the author that FP, good as it is, is not enough. That's not an argument against FP, it's an argument in favor of devising even better tools, practices and the theoretical underpinnings for building correct software. The article was not an argument against FP. Why do you think it is? It is simply an argument against a certain justification for using FP, namely that it guarantees good code.

the_af 10y ago
> People do say that, so it's not a strawman. Who says this? No-one who is a serious practitioner of FP (as opposed to someone who just reads about it in blogs) will tell you that FP automatically guarantees good code. You'll hear that FP goes a long way at reducing some common sources of errors, which is a pretty big deal, but automatically correct code? No-one will claim that. > The article was not an argument against FP. I didn't say the article was. Besides the clickbait title, and some dubious assertions (and a poor example with QuickSort), I do agree with the overall assertion that "FP is good, but not enough".
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Who says this? No-one who is a serious practitioner of FP (as opposed to someone who just reads about it in blogs) will tell you that FP automatically guarantees good code. No true scotsman fallacy.
  - the_af 10y ago
    The problem with the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it's impossible to apply to the internet, where there is always someone out there who will claim anything about anything. Therefore, in order to have a rational discussion about this, we must apply some sort of filter. I propose this filter: no-one who is an actual practitioner of FP (someone who uses it to build software, not someone who just talks about it in the internet) will not make the claim you mentioned, i.e. "FP guarantees good code" (I'm quoting you verbatim). I hope it stands to reason that it doesn't matter what people who've never used FP claim about FP.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      It's still a fallacy. Being on the internet doesn't change that. > I hope it stands to reason that it doesn't matter what people who've never used FP claim about FP. That doesn't matter. An argument is not a strawman if it has been made by anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. You can't just filter out the people you think don't count. An argument is only a strawman if it is a false argument, e.g. one that has been invented by the person who is arguing against it. If you want to have a discussion about the merits of FP, feel free to filter out whoever you like. But you said the argument mentioned in the article is a strawman, and it isn't.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Also empirically disproven, even on HN. It seems there's a phase that some FP programmers go through where they have a zealotry that requires convincing the masses of the glorious wonders of FP. For the most part, they seem to either outgrow the "FP is the One True Way" zealotry, or at least learn to keep it to themselves for the most part. In fairness, I'd say that I've seen it on HN less in the last year or so than I did before that.
    - the_af 10y ago
      > Also empirically disproven, even on HN. Can you provide an example of someone who claims "FP guarantees good code"?
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Word for word? No. At least implying that? Probably not at the moment, given how many different ways it can be stated, and given that I've forgotten what the search engine for HN is. (There is one, but I failed to bookmark it when it was called to my attention.) But I tell you that here on HN, I personally have argued against views that in my view are at least similar to that. Similar enough that you'll think they are the same? I can't answer that, partly because of my own forgetfulness of the exact details, partly because I don't know what you'd consider similar enough to count.
        spdionis 10y ago
        The search engine is on the homepage, at the bottom.

the_af 10y ago

> People do say that, so it's not a strawman. Who says this? No-one who is a serious practitioner of FP (as opposed to someone who just reads about it in blogs) will tell you that FP automatically guarantees good code. You'll hear that FP goes a long way at reducing some common sources of errors, which is a pretty big deal, but automatically correct code? No-one will claim that. > The article was not an argument against FP. I didn't say the article was. Besides the clickbait title, and some dubious assertions (and a poor example with QuickSort), I do agree with the overall assertion that "FP is good, but not enough".

twblalock 10y ago
> Who says this? No-one who is a serious practitioner of FP (as opposed to someone who just reads about it in blogs) will tell you that FP automatically guarantees good code. No true scotsman fallacy.
- the_af 10y ago
  The problem with the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it's impossible to apply to the internet, where there is always someone out there who will claim anything about anything. Therefore, in order to have a rational discussion about this, we must apply some sort of filter. I propose this filter: no-one who is an actual practitioner of FP (someone who uses it to build software, not someone who just talks about it in the internet) will not make the claim you mentioned, i.e. "FP guarantees good code" (I'm quoting you verbatim). I hope it stands to reason that it doesn't matter what people who've never used FP claim about FP.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    It's still a fallacy. Being on the internet doesn't change that. > I hope it stands to reason that it doesn't matter what people who've never used FP claim about FP. That doesn't matter. An argument is not a strawman if it has been made by anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. You can't just filter out the people you think don't count. An argument is only a strawman if it is a false argument, e.g. one that has been invented by the person who is arguing against it. If you want to have a discussion about the merits of FP, feel free to filter out whoever you like. But you said the argument mentioned in the article is a strawman, and it isn't.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Also empirically disproven, even on HN. It seems there's a phase that some FP programmers go through where they have a zealotry that requires convincing the masses of the glorious wonders of FP. For the most part, they seem to either outgrow the "FP is the One True Way" zealotry, or at least learn to keep it to themselves for the most part. In fairness, I'd say that I've seen it on HN less in the last year or so than I did before that.
  - the_af 10y ago
    > Also empirically disproven, even on HN. Can you provide an example of someone who claims "FP guarantees good code"?
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Word for word? No. At least implying that? Probably not at the moment, given how many different ways it can be stated, and given that I've forgotten what the search engine for HN is. (There is one, but I failed to bookmark it when it was called to my attention.) But I tell you that here on HN, I personally have argued against views that in my view are at least similar to that. Similar enough that you'll think they are the same? I can't answer that, partly because of my own forgetfulness of the exact details, partly because I don't know what you'd consider similar enough to count.
      - spdionis 10y ago
        The search engine is on the homepage, at the bottom.