3 ms·

> Do you have anything that explains this complex topic? > Something that assumes I don't know anything about the pre-requisite topic would be helpful Unfortu

> Do you have anything that explains this complex topic? > Something that assumes I don't know anything about the pre-requisite topic would be helpful Unfortunately the only way to gain a deep understanding of the powerful tools functional languages do give you is to gain a deep understanding of functional paradigms. Me saying "Monads can help with state abstractions" doesn't help you. The fact that large non-trivial applications have been written in haskell should be enough evidence that this is possible. The fact that the majority of people involved in such endeavors have claimed that it made their code safer and easier to refactor and had relatively few bugs should be enough evidence that it's a good idea. The fact that those who decry it more often than not do not know the subject should give their criticisms no weight. I don't see why you need any more evidence that you should simply learn functional programming so that you may first-hand answer your own question.

kbenson 8y ago
> Unfortunately the only way to gain a deep understanding of the powerful tools functional languages do give you is to gain a deep understanding of functional paradigms. > I don't see why you need any more evidence that you should simply learn functional programming so that you may first-hand answer your own question. It is possible to interpret the GP comment as a request for good resources to learn FP. You seem like you could probably point one or two out. Since they've already expressed a desire to understand, that might be more beneficial for them than the equivalent of "just do it".
- mreome 8y ago
  Thank you. Basically I was looking for the functional-programming equivalent to the OOP factory-equipment analogy, or asking if such an analogy does/can exist (if it can't, the why might also be a valuable explanation). That analogy can be used to explain the main ideas behind encapsulation, interfaces, and internal state, and why they are valuable, before having any understanding of how those are implemented in practice, and even without any programming knowledge at all. So far everything I've found on functional programming starts with implementation details and provides no initial framework for understanding the broad-strokes of organisation and value proposition.
  - lavayya 8y ago
    You might like Rich Hickey's talks, especially "The value of values", "The language of the System", and the 2018 conj key note. The Talk in transducers also has a nice analogy: the conveyor belt.
mreome 8y ago
Unfortunately the only way to gain a deep understanding of the powerful tools functional languages do give you is to gain a deep understanding of functional paradigms. If I didn't know what 'functional' was in this context, I'd be entirely convinced you were tying to convert me to your religion with that statement. This attitude from the functional-programming community is the main reason I have avoided learning more. I was asking a legitimate question and instead of providing something useful you decided to assume I don't know anything about the pre-requisite topic and spout verbose dogma at me that does nothing but attempt, and fail, to make you appear intelligent.

kbenson 8y ago

> Unfortunately the only way to gain a deep understanding of the powerful tools functional languages do give you is to gain a deep understanding of functional paradigms. > I don't see why you need any more evidence that you should simply learn functional programming so that you may first-hand answer your own question. It is possible to interpret the GP comment as a request for good resources to learn FP. You seem like you could probably point one or two out. Since they've already expressed a desire to understand, that might be more beneficial for them than the equivalent of "just do it".

mreome 8y ago
Thank you. Basically I was looking for the functional-programming equivalent to the OOP factory-equipment analogy, or asking if such an analogy does/can exist (if it can't, the why might also be a valuable explanation). That analogy can be used to explain the main ideas behind encapsulation, interfaces, and internal state, and why they are valuable, before having any understanding of how those are implemented in practice, and even without any programming knowledge at all. So far everything I've found on functional programming starts with implementation details and provides no initial framework for understanding the broad-strokes of organisation and value proposition.
- lavayya 8y ago
  You might like Rich Hickey's talks, especially "The value of values", "The language of the System", and the 2018 conj key note. The Talk in transducers also has a nice analogy: the conveyor belt.

mreome 8y ago

Unfortunately the only way to gain a deep understanding of the powerful tools functional languages do give you is to gain a deep understanding of functional paradigms. If I didn't know what 'functional' was in this context, I'd be entirely convinced you were tying to convert me to your religion with that statement. This attitude from the functional-programming community is the main reason I have avoided learning more. I was asking a legitimate question and instead of providing something useful you decided to assume I don't know anything about the pre-requisite topic and spout verbose dogma at me that does nothing but attempt, and fail, to make you appear intelligent.