4 ms·

This is ... much more politely and detailedly stated than I managed on Twitter. I work in FP, programming Clojure for real-world web applications every single

by jarcane 10y ago

This is ... much more politely and detailedly stated than I managed on Twitter. I work in FP, programming Clojure for real-world web applications every single day, and 90% of this list is completely meaningless to me. It's nothing less than more of the Haskellite strain of "everything must be hideously complicated type theory or it's not 'real' FP." And that shit can fuck right off. It's incredibly hostile and disrespectful both to new programmers and existing ones. It's even harmful to Haskell itself as a language, because this persistent attitude that you have to learn advanced type theory just to get anything done in Haskell is one of the biggest barriers to adoption and learning of the language, especially when even most of the material supposedly for "beginners" insists on thrusting this attitude on the reader. Once again, just as they did by platforming an open fascist, LC demonstrates a complete cluelessness both of the community it claims to represent, and of the impact their "representation" has on said community.

pron 10y ago
I think that Haskell's takeover of the term "functional programming" in certain circles/contexts is both inevitable and nothing you should care about (I, too, program in Clojure, an imperative-functional language, and I don't mind it not being perceived as "true FP"). See this relevant discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/59hubc/happiness_is_a_boring_stack/d99rzsm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/59hubc/happine...
Veen 10y ago
Was with you all the way to the end, where you chose to insert a bit of entirely irrelevant politicking.
pka 10y ago
The fact that it's meaningless to you doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning :) Your "hideously complicated type theory" is many peoples' "hideously horrible paren-based syntax" - i.e. Lisp. So, how many people don't learn Lisp only because of its syntax? I'd say a lot. Many of the concepts make sense when having an explicit type system, so if you want types you may want to learn them. Others I suspect you are already using, even if you don't know them by name. Have you ever used streams? Congratulations, this is what codata is.
- AimHere 10y ago
  > "hideously horrible paren-based syntax" - i.e. Lisp. So, how many people don't learn Lisp only because of its syntax? I'd say a lot. But the point is that nobody's putting 'S-expression syntax languages' in a Lisp-centric list of essential functional programming skills. The idea that half this stuff is supposedly mandatory is a skewed perspective. > Others I suspect you are already using, even if you don't know them by name. And if the list is comprised of Haskell-centric jargon for more generic notions, that's obviously grounds for criticism.
  - pka 10y ago
    > But the point is that nobody's putting 'S-expression syntax languages' in a Lisp-centric list of essential functional programming skills. They should've probably said "FP-only" (i.e. pure) languages to exclude imperative languages that merely support functional programming constructs, like Clojure, Erlang, etc. I agree, many of the concepts that are useful in pure languages (i.e. monads) are not that practical in imperative/impure or dynamic languages (at the cost of reduced ability to reason about your program.) > And if the list is comprised of Haskell-centric jargon for more generic notions, that's obviously grounds for criticism. It's the other way around - the items on this list are the more generic concepts [0]. Less expressive languages lack the (practical) ability to reason about those concepts generically, hence the need for more specialized constructs, like i.e. streams, transducers, etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinduction#Codata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinduction#Codata
    - jarcane 10y ago
      They should've probably said "FP-only" (i.e. pure) languages to exclude imperative languages that merely support functional programming constructs, like Clojure, Erlang, etc. Ahh, and there would be that definition again, the one at the root of the problem. Please find your nearest whiteboard and write the following 100 times or until it sinks in: "Haskell is not the only Functional Programming language." FFS, the languages that invented functional programming are not Haskell, and predate it by some time. Lisp dates back to 1958. Scheme first appeared in 1970. ML dates to 1973. Haskell didn't even exist until 1990. This weird ahistorical definition of "functional programming" is both useless and inaccurate. Strict typing and purity are not the sole measure of whether a programming language is functional and never have been. It's only been in the last few years that there seems to be this desperate push to define FP as "Haskell", which as far as I can tell is the product more of a desperate kind of evangelism than any sound argument for such a limited definition. We get it, you like Haskell. But some of us also like Clojure, and Erlang, and Elixir, and F#, and OCaml, etc. etc., and you don't get to just redefine terms to cut out languages you don't like. Reality doesn't work that way.
seanparsons 10y ago
I really don't understand your rage about this, you could offer up constructive criticism and suggest an alternative that more closely suits Clojure/Lisp development. The strain you're referring seems like this perception that is somehow self perpetuating. My experience is that of an incredibly helpful community that gives up its time to help and educate people.
willtim 10y ago
> And that shit can fuck right off This is Anti-intellectualism. FP is often a sliding scale. You can program with as much or as little type safety, purity or totality as you want. Some folks like to push the boundaries of what is possible without shortcuts, taking inspiration from recent research. Many Haskell, OCaml, Scala and F# libraries will require some of the concepts in this list to understand. I do agree that the list is somewhat Haskell centric though.
sclv 10y ago
I think this list is not reflective of a general Haskell outlook. Its reflective of an outlook of people standing _outside_ Haskell (LC is historically a scala-heavy conference) and projecting onto it a certain sort of structure of expectations that isn't actually how Haskellers in general view things. I agree that this misperception isn't a good thing for Haskell -- but its a misperception imposed from the _outside_.

by jarcane 10y ago

pron 10y ago

I think that Haskell's takeover of the term "functional programming" in certain circles/contexts is both inevitable and nothing you should care about (I, too, program in Clojure, an imperative-functional language, and I don't mind it not being perceived as "true FP"). See this relevant discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/59hubc/happiness_is_a_boring_stack/d99rzsm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/59hubc/happine...

Veen 10y ago

Was with you all the way to the end, where you chose to insert a bit of entirely irrelevant politicking.

pka 10y ago

The fact that it's meaningless to you doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning :) Your "hideously complicated type theory" is many peoples' "hideously horrible paren-based syntax" - i.e. Lisp. So, how many people don't learn Lisp only because of its syntax? I'd say a lot. Many of the concepts make sense when having an explicit type system, so if you want types you may want to learn them. Others I suspect you are already using, even if you don't know them by name. Have you ever used streams? Congratulations, this is what codata is.

AimHere 10y ago
> "hideously horrible paren-based syntax" - i.e. Lisp. So, how many people don't learn Lisp only because of its syntax? I'd say a lot. But the point is that nobody's putting 'S-expression syntax languages' in a Lisp-centric list of essential functional programming skills. The idea that half this stuff is supposedly mandatory is a skewed perspective. > Others I suspect you are already using, even if you don't know them by name. And if the list is comprised of Haskell-centric jargon for more generic notions, that's obviously grounds for criticism.
- pka 10y ago
  > But the point is that nobody's putting 'S-expression syntax languages' in a Lisp-centric list of essential functional programming skills. They should've probably said "FP-only" (i.e. pure) languages to exclude imperative languages that merely support functional programming constructs, like Clojure, Erlang, etc. I agree, many of the concepts that are useful in pure languages (i.e. monads) are not that practical in imperative/impure or dynamic languages (at the cost of reduced ability to reason about your program.) > And if the list is comprised of Haskell-centric jargon for more generic notions, that's obviously grounds for criticism. It's the other way around - the items on this list are the more generic concepts [0]. Less expressive languages lack the (practical) ability to reason about those concepts generically, hence the need for more specialized constructs, like i.e. streams, transducers, etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinduction#Codata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinduction#Codata
  - jarcane 10y ago
    They should've probably said "FP-only" (i.e. pure) languages to exclude imperative languages that merely support functional programming constructs, like Clojure, Erlang, etc. Ahh, and there would be that definition again, the one at the root of the problem. Please find your nearest whiteboard and write the following 100 times or until it sinks in: "Haskell is not the only Functional Programming language." FFS, the languages that invented functional programming are not Haskell, and predate it by some time. Lisp dates back to 1958. Scheme first appeared in 1970. ML dates to 1973. Haskell didn't even exist until 1990. This weird ahistorical definition of "functional programming" is both useless and inaccurate. Strict typing and purity are not the sole measure of whether a programming language is functional and never have been. It's only been in the last few years that there seems to be this desperate push to define FP as "Haskell", which as far as I can tell is the product more of a desperate kind of evangelism than any sound argument for such a limited definition. We get it, you like Haskell. But some of us also like Clojure, and Erlang, and Elixir, and F#, and OCaml, etc. etc., and you don't get to just redefine terms to cut out languages you don't like. Reality doesn't work that way.

seanparsons 10y ago

I really don't understand your rage about this, you could offer up constructive criticism and suggest an alternative that more closely suits Clojure/Lisp development. The strain you're referring seems like this perception that is somehow self perpetuating. My experience is that of an incredibly helpful community that gives up its time to help and educate people.

willtim 10y ago

> And that shit can fuck right off This is Anti-intellectualism. FP is often a sliding scale. You can program with as much or as little type safety, purity or totality as you want. Some folks like to push the boundaries of what is possible without shortcuts, taking inspiration from recent research. Many Haskell, OCaml, Scala and F# libraries will require some of the concepts in this list to understand. I do agree that the list is somewhat Haskell centric though.

sclv 10y ago

I think this list is not reflective of a general Haskell outlook. Its reflective of an outlook of people standing _outside_ Haskell (LC is historically a scala-heavy conference) and projecting onto it a certain sort of structure of expectations that isn't actually how Haskellers in general view things. I agree that this misperception isn't a good thing for Haskell -- but its a misperception imposed from the _outside_.