3 ms·

Depends on what you mean with Functional Programming. Do you think we will ever see: "Math - The Trillion Dollar Disaster"? Because we really ought to go that

Depends on what you mean with Functional Programming. Do you think we will ever see: "Math - The Trillion Dollar Disaster"? Because we really ought to go that way (more proofs like Idris/Agda). > “Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to > appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.” > ― Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

GuiA 7y ago
Unless the tooling makes it trivial - which is still a long, long time away, if possible - I’m not sure there is a world where the increased cost of formal verification (mostly in terms of engineers who know what they’re doing) makes sense for things like line of business PHP/node.js websites, internal python apps, bash scripts, etc.
- danielscrubs 7y ago
  100% agree, but I'm hopeful.
kjeetgill 7y ago
> Do you think we will ever see: "Math - The Trillion Dollar Disaster"? Close! We have "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Tongue-in-cheek aside, it's one of those things where the more good you do the more bad you do. If X has a trillion dollars of good impact, it'll more trivially have a few million of bad impact at least. It's like a weird inverse Amdahl's law. OOP definitely solved a huge class of issues for a lot of people better than the "average state-of-the-art" at the time, and introduced a lot of people to even reasoning around concepts like encapsulation and abstraction. Was it the best thing ever for all time forever and ever? Did it have contemporary ideas that could have been perfect forever? Sure. Does that mean it did more harm than good. Questionable.
nikofeyn 7y ago
> Because we really ought to go that way (more proofs like Idris/Agda). proofs are not everything in software. what do you do if you're handed a massive code-base in idris and are asked to make a change, a change that requires jumping through all sorts of hoops due to the type system? constrained type systems are fine but along some vectors of software development, they actually increase brittleness. maybe not brittleness at run-time but at develop and maintenance time.

GuiA 7y ago

Unless the tooling makes it trivial - which is still a long, long time away, if possible - I’m not sure there is a world where the increased cost of formal verification (mostly in terms of engineers who know what they’re doing) makes sense for things like line of business PHP/node.js websites, internal python apps, bash scripts, etc.

danielscrubs 7y ago
100% agree, but I'm hopeful.

kjeetgill 7y ago

> Do you think we will ever see: "Math - The Trillion Dollar Disaster"? Close! We have "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Tongue-in-cheek aside, it's one of those things where the more good you do the more bad you do. If X has a trillion dollars of good impact, it'll more trivially have a few million of bad impact at least. It's like a weird inverse Amdahl's law. OOP definitely solved a huge class of issues for a lot of people better than the "average state-of-the-art" at the time, and introduced a lot of people to even reasoning around concepts like encapsulation and abstraction. Was it the best thing ever for all time forever and ever? Did it have contemporary ideas that could have been perfect forever? Sure. Does that mean it did more harm than good. Questionable.

nikofeyn 7y ago

> Because we really ought to go that way (more proofs like Idris/Agda). proofs are not everything in software. what do you do if you're handed a massive code-base in idris and are asked to make a change, a change that requires jumping through all sorts of hoops due to the type system? constrained type systems are fine but along some vectors of software development, they actually increase brittleness. maybe not brittleness at run-time but at develop and maintenance time.