19 ms·
That's the problem with dogmatism. Functional programming is great, and there are probably a lot of codebases which could be improved by being a bit more funct
by skohan 8y ago
That's the problem with dogmatism. Functional programming is great, and there are probably a lot of codebases which could be improved by being a bit more functional, but when you take it as a given that "more (X) == better code" and make design decisions based on that rather than the problem you are trying to solve, sooner or later you will start doing things which don't make sense.
- bunderbunder 8y agoDogmatism, maybe, but I think maybe it's more symptomatic of just having too much book knowledge and not enough hands-on experience. I'm starting to have this experience where I'll advise a more junior programmer to exercise caution about $THING_FROM_BLOGOSPHERE because, while the code examples from the blog post certainly do make things look nice, I can see where it might develop XYZ problem when you try to use it in production code. Typically I'm ignored, because I'm clearly just old-fashioned, and possibly even starting to go senile. Typically, after 6 months or so, you'll see that developer discovering that they're running int XYZ problem. This is all cranked up to 11 with functional programming, because what a lot of newcomers to FP don't fully appreciate is, avid functional programmers are people who love to play with abstractions. Emphasis on the word play. My sense is that a lot of the stuff that people are putting out there is a mix of spitballing new ideas and stuff done in the spirit of RFC 1149. see also: https://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html https://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html
- ams6110 8y agoPeople keep looking for silver bullets... or thinking they've found one.