5 ms·

This comment puzzles me. For one, I can't recall meeting a stong FP proponent that accepts anything less than a language designed from the ground-up to be true

This comment puzzles me. For one, I can't recall meeting a stong FP proponent that accepts anything less than a language designed from the ground-up to be true FP. Second, how is Python afraid of FP? This[1] document has been part of the Python docs for as long as I can remember. [1] https://docs.python.org/2/howto/functional.html https://docs.python.org/2/howto/functional.html

bluecalm 8y ago
I love functional style and I think Python is very friendly to that style. You can make pure functions. You can use classes as store of values. Pass values and functions around as they are first class citizens. That you need some local state to implement a pure function isn't a problem as you can limit it to very simple things. Anonymous functions are not something you need either, just give it a name and pass it, wtp? I agree most of the "Python is not functional enough" criticism comes from people who just want as pure FP as possible.
PurpleRamen 8y ago
Some people think, because python is not fully embracing functional programming, it must fear it. Because anything less than 100% functional is not good enough. Namly the limited lambdas are always brought as a reason.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Many programming languages these days have FP tendencies. However I can barely think of another mainstream and high level language that is more anti-FP than Python. And lambdas, in spite of popular opinion, have nothing to do with it ;-) (Actually I can think of another language that is more anti-FP than Python and that would be Go ... people saying Go is “pythonic” have it right)
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    I'd be curious which of JavaScript, perl, js, and Ruby (and hell, go or Java, which are often considered high level) is more friendly to fp than python, and why, obviously. That's pretty much every other mainstream high level language ;) I've never heard anyone call go pythonic.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I'd be curious which of JavaScript, perl, js, and Ruby (and hell, go or Java, which are often considered high level) is more friendly to fp than python, and why, obviously. JS (which you listed twice), Perl (5 or 6), and in some ways Ruby (which is a mixed bag, because it doesn't actually have functions per se, but even so is in many ways more friendly to functional style than Python.) Being expression-oriented languages with full support for anonymous functions (callables in Ruby) and non-awkward creation of full (rather than read-only) closures are the main common factors.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        Sorry, php, not js the second time. I'm not sure what you mean by read only closures, unless you mean a close which can later modify the enclosing scope, which python supports via the nonlocal keyword but also is decidedly bad, and not something I've ever before heard of as an fp concept. And as far as I can tell, your entire argument reduces to better lambdas. Which is what you said it wouldn't be. I feel misled. Oh wait you're a different user. Still this point stands. I wouldn't have responded if the expected answer was "better lambdas". You can do better. I guess the next important question is "what are the things you feel make a language functional, and why are those things valuable"? There are lots of aspects of functional programming that are good, I personally agree that anonymous functions are not one of them, especially when you have no need for callbacks (python doesn't really). And it's very possible to write functional code, imo, without anonymous functions. Why do you disagree.
      - pmontra 8y ago
        Ruby has multi line lambdas and code blocks. Python doesn't. However we can't pass a function as argument (actually a method but it could be a def in a module). We can pass a symbol with the name of the fuction. We can pass the function in Python. I write very few classes in Python. I tend to write modules and import them. It's what I do in Elixir, obviously. However I don't write much Ruby code outside Rails and Rails is definitely object oriented and directs the developer to write OO code. Instead the most popular web framework for Python, Django, is almost anarchy, anything will do.
- peatmoss 8y ago
  Most lisps are multiparadigm, and few would claim lisps are anti FP. I think Python is considered anti FP for two reasons: when suggestions to add more FP features have been raised, Guido has fairly unambiguously rejected those features. That’s all fine though. Python can do what Python wants. All else being equal, I’d prefer a little more functional flavor than Python has, but I won’t turn my nose up at writing Python if duty calls.
bunderbunder 8y ago
There has been some pushback on the inclusion of common functional idioms in Python, though. For example, GvR has expressed regret about allowing map, filter, etc. into Python, on the grounds that comprehensions are a more Pythonic way to accomplish most of the same stuff.
- bluecalm 8y ago
  Aren't map and filter just redundant if you accept list comprehension as Pythonic thing to do?
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Maybe just map and filter but there are far more operations that can be done on these types than what is cleanly expressed in a comprehension.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  I assume it's because of this... Zen of Python: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    True, but, if it were just that, I would expect Python to only have the map, filter, etc. functions, which have been in there since 1.0. List comprehensions were introduced much later, in version 2. That makes comprehensions the 2nd way to do it. They're also less obvious in my book, since their readability tends to drop precipitously once you start adding multiple "for" clauses to one.
- somenewacc 8y ago
  But comprehensions are also a functional idiom.
  - lmm 8y ago
    The version Python has is awkward to work with, to the point that many Haskell programmers don't even realise it exists. The "do notation" style is much clearer than the "comprehension" style; unfortunately Python has no equivalent.
jrs95 8y ago
I’m not a strong FP proponent per se. I just really enjoy using things like Java 8 Streams, Lodash/Ramda, etc. Comprehensions are nice but they have a more limited scope than functions. Honestly the same can be said for decorators. Useful, but ultimately not much more useful than a plain old higher order function.

bluecalm 8y ago

I love functional style and I think Python is very friendly to that style. You can make pure functions. You can use classes as store of values. Pass values and functions around as they are first class citizens. That you need some local state to implement a pure function isn't a problem as you can limit it to very simple things. Anonymous functions are not something you need either, just give it a name and pass it, wtp? I agree most of the "Python is not functional enough" criticism comes from people who just want as pure FP as possible.

PurpleRamen 8y ago

Some people think, because python is not fully embracing functional programming, it must fear it. Because anything less than 100% functional is not good enough. Namly the limited lambdas are always brought as a reason.

bad_user 8y ago
Many programming languages these days have FP tendencies. However I can barely think of another mainstream and high level language that is more anti-FP than Python. And lambdas, in spite of popular opinion, have nothing to do with it ;-) (Actually I can think of another language that is more anti-FP than Python and that would be Go ... people saying Go is “pythonic” have it right)
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  I'd be curious which of JavaScript, perl, js, and Ruby (and hell, go or Java, which are often considered high level) is more friendly to fp than python, and why, obviously. That's pretty much every other mainstream high level language ;) I've never heard anyone call go pythonic.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I'd be curious which of JavaScript, perl, js, and Ruby (and hell, go or Java, which are often considered high level) is more friendly to fp than python, and why, obviously. JS (which you listed twice), Perl (5 or 6), and in some ways Ruby (which is a mixed bag, because it doesn't actually have functions per se, but even so is in many ways more friendly to functional style than Python.) Being expression-oriented languages with full support for anonymous functions (callables in Ruby) and non-awkward creation of full (rather than read-only) closures are the main common factors.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      Sorry, php, not js the second time. I'm not sure what you mean by read only closures, unless you mean a close which can later modify the enclosing scope, which python supports via the nonlocal keyword but also is decidedly bad, and not something I've ever before heard of as an fp concept. And as far as I can tell, your entire argument reduces to better lambdas. Which is what you said it wouldn't be. I feel misled. Oh wait you're a different user. Still this point stands. I wouldn't have responded if the expected answer was "better lambdas". You can do better. I guess the next important question is "what are the things you feel make a language functional, and why are those things valuable"? There are lots of aspects of functional programming that are good, I personally agree that anonymous functions are not one of them, especially when you have no need for callbacks (python doesn't really). And it's very possible to write functional code, imo, without anonymous functions. Why do you disagree.
    - pmontra 8y ago
      Ruby has multi line lambdas and code blocks. Python doesn't. However we can't pass a function as argument (actually a method but it could be a def in a module). We can pass a symbol with the name of the fuction. We can pass the function in Python. I write very few classes in Python. I tend to write modules and import them. It's what I do in Elixir, obviously. However I don't write much Ruby code outside Rails and Rails is definitely object oriented and directs the developer to write OO code. Instead the most popular web framework for Python, Django, is almost anarchy, anything will do.
peatmoss 8y ago
Most lisps are multiparadigm, and few would claim lisps are anti FP. I think Python is considered anti FP for two reasons: when suggestions to add more FP features have been raised, Guido has fairly unambiguously rejected those features. That’s all fine though. Python can do what Python wants. All else being equal, I’d prefer a little more functional flavor than Python has, but I won’t turn my nose up at writing Python if duty calls.

bunderbunder 8y ago

There has been some pushback on the inclusion of common functional idioms in Python, though. For example, GvR has expressed regret about allowing map, filter, etc. into Python, on the grounds that comprehensions are a more Pythonic way to accomplish most of the same stuff.

bluecalm 8y ago
Aren't map and filter just redundant if you accept list comprehension as Pythonic thing to do?
- jrs95 8y ago
  Maybe just map and filter but there are far more operations that can be done on these types than what is cleanly expressed in a comprehension.
metalliqaz 8y ago
I assume it's because of this... Zen of Python: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  True, but, if it were just that, I would expect Python to only have the map, filter, etc. functions, which have been in there since 1.0. List comprehensions were introduced much later, in version 2. That makes comprehensions the 2nd way to do it. They're also less obvious in my book, since their readability tends to drop precipitously once you start adding multiple "for" clauses to one.
somenewacc 8y ago
But comprehensions are also a functional idiom.
- lmm 8y ago
  The version Python has is awkward to work with, to the point that many Haskell programmers don't even realise it exists. The "do notation" style is much clearer than the "comprehension" style; unfortunately Python has no equivalent.

jrs95 8y ago

I’m not a strong FP proponent per se. I just really enjoy using things like Java 8 Streams, Lodash/Ramda, etc. Comprehensions are nice but they have a more limited scope than functions. Honestly the same can be said for decorators. Useful, but ultimately not much more useful than a plain old higher order function.