3 ms·

Yup. And tests and documentation are just overhead.

• weberc2 7y ago
  > Yup. And tests and documentation are just overhead. Why post here at all if you’re just here to troll and start flame wars?
  • trilila 7y ago
    My intentions are neither to start flame wars, nor to troll, sorry if I came across that way. I am being sarcastic against posts contrarian to common practice only for the sake of being contrarian, this being one. If a current good practice is to write tests, there will be a post against writing tests. If a current good practice is to write documentation, there will be a post against writing documentation. If OOP then functional. In my consulting job I do have to untangle code written using contrarian practices, obscure languages, and other temporary fads. Not that Haskell is not a good language, or that functional programming is a bad approach, but rather that neither are a secret weapon against anything else but specific problems these are good at solving. Good luck to those companies scaling to more than a handful of devs - they could also hire people to migrate them the right language for the task at hand.
    • weberc2 7y ago
      I think the communication problem here is that you’re arguing against the notion that FP is a silver bullet, but no one here has made that argument, so it sounds like you’re arguing that OOP is superior. I buck pretty hard at this because everything uniquely OOP (e.g., inheritance) is generally only problematic. And OOPproponents love pointing out that good OOP programmers don’t use these bad features/idioms/etc or they only use them where they don’t cause problems, in which case their code ends up looking the same as it would in any non-OOP imperative language (e.g., Go).