4 ms·

I don't think the latter point is true. FP requires a lot of thinking up front, which is not how most engineers like to work. That's not to say that FP is at o

by ves 9y ago

I don't think the latter point is true. FP requires a lot of thinking up front, which is not how most engineers like to work. That's not to say that FP is at odds with iterative programming, but it means that you have to work out a "specification" of your code pretty completely from the beginning. Although, even then it's not so bad because the excellent type systems and compilers mean you can develop the specification interactively (see Idris' typed holes).

ece 9y ago
Which part? I think even John Carmack in the video talked about the upfront thinking required for FP. If every CS student learned category and type theory like they learn complexity theory; and FP compilers could optimize type classes and all the object creation, FP would definitely be more widely used. But, yes, there is definitely a cost to picking up FP today in almost any domain, but it's getting lower.