5 ms·
Presumably the point is that most functional programmers wouldn't have bothered giving dedicated names to, say, “strategies” or “factories”, more or less the sa
by catnaroek 9y ago
Presumably the point is that most functional programmers wouldn't have bothered giving dedicated names to, say, “strategies” or “factories”, more or less the same way nobody would bother calling “(a + b) / 2” the “average pattern”.
- guelo 9y agoMaybe they would call it a monoid or something much clearer like that.
- catnaroek 9y agoFortunately you have about an hour to edit your comment into something that, at least, is not patently stupid.
- geezerjay 9y ago> nobody would bother calling “(a + b) / 2” the “average pattern”. don't you mean.... the arithmetic mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean Oh my god, and people bother themselves calling the addition o sequences of numbers as summation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summation Where does this madness end? These morons even bothered themselves forming whole fields in mathematics by studying adding numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics) Why is humanity so wrong about such a simple concept? Why is everyone bothered to give dedicated names to concepts you fail to understand?
- catnaroek 9y agoThe mean is an precisely defined operation in mathematics, not a vaguely defined “pattern” in software engineering. I insist: You only need “patterns” when you can't articulate your ideas precisely in a formal language, such as a programming language or mathematics.