5 ms·
In my limited experience with functional programming, I've come away with the impression that the problems you're describing are why you don't see a lot of comp
by allemagne 8y ago
In my limited experience with functional programming, I've come away with the impression that the problems you're describing are why you don't see a lot of companies that use FP exclusively.
But I think the advantages that OP is lauding are also there, and "space shuttle code" might just be where it shines. Reading that comment in this post made me immediately think of Haskell. The Clojure components at my company fits the "space shuttle" description of importance, and its dependability is striking compared to the rest of our code. Part of it may be that being written in a different language allows its concerns to be separate from the rest of the application too, but I do think the FP paradigm is simply good in this domain.
- weberc2 8y agoSure, but I doubt all of Kubernetes is written in this style, so it’s probably not worth writing everything in Haskell. Note also that there’s nothing about FP that prohibits it from addressing the aforementioned practical problems. Some Haskell-like could swoop in and totally steal Go’s lunch if they would simply prioritize practicality over experimentation.
- bb88 8y ago> Some Haskell-like could swoop in and totally steal Go’s lunch if they would simply prioritize practicality over experimentation. I don't know. It seems like it would be easy enough to build an AST to make sure there were no unknown conditions that didn't lead to a return statement.
- weberc2 8y agoI don’t understand how your post relates to mine. I was saying that if a static functional language focused more on simplicity, readability, good tooling and documentation, etc then it would eat Go’s lunch without trading off any of Haskell’s important characteristics (I.e., robust type safety).