35 ms·

Functional Programming? Don’t Even Bother, It’s a Silly Toy

11 points by leandrotk 7y ago

inflatableDodo 7y ago
>The so-called “functional” programming has no proper mechanisms of abstraction since it is based on mathematics (which obviously is inferior and has no applications in the real world apart from the academia). Amazingly, this article appears to be serious.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  It's not. > Declarative code, on the other hand, is too concise, and erroneously makes the developers focus on the less important things, like business logic. ----- >It takes at least 20–30 years to get good with OOP, even then most people with 30 years of OOP experience haven’t truly mastered it. The learning path is rough, filled with uncertainty. A lifetime of learning awaits the OOP developer, how exciting is that! > What about the poor functional programmers? Unfortunately, there’s not much to learn. I personally have taught a few junior developers functional programming in JavaScript, and they became really good at it in about half a year. They simply had to understand a few basic concepts and then learned to apply them pretty quickly. Where’s the thrill of lifetime learning? I wouldn’t envy them.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Off to check the batteries in my satire meter.
- mimixco 7y ago
  It's satire. Dissing math as irrelevant should have been your first tip off.
patientplatypus 7y ago
Click bait. boo :<
PhilWright 7y ago
The author is often found bashing OOP and praising FP. It's his hobby horse. Every time he needs a few clicks on his blog, up comes the 'OOP is a disaster!'. It's a wonder the world has managed to survive with the billions of lines of OOP out in the wild, running the world!
- abc_lisper 7y ago
  Yeah, if it was FP it would be millions instead of billions. The point being, there is nothing special about oops or any other new concept which resembles poorly defined real world semantics. Math, patterns are the masters here. And everything should be amenable to computation ie things like reflection should be part of the language and not treated like a carefully handled baby. As soon as that is met, everything naturally collapses into repeating patterns. And we can apply powerful theorems of math we have accumulated over centuries to the work at hand

11 points by leandrotk 7y ago

>The so-called “functional” programming has no proper mechanisms of abstraction since it is based on mathematics (which obviously is inferior and has no applications in the real world apart from the academia). Amazingly, this article appears to be serious.

pessimizer 7y ago
It's not. > Declarative code, on the other hand, is too concise, and erroneously makes the developers focus on the less important things, like business logic. ----- >It takes at least 20–30 years to get good with OOP, even then most people with 30 years of OOP experience haven’t truly mastered it. The learning path is rough, filled with uncertainty. A lifetime of learning awaits the OOP developer, how exciting is that! > What about the poor functional programmers? Unfortunately, there’s not much to learn. I personally have taught a few junior developers functional programming in JavaScript, and they became really good at it in about half a year. They simply had to understand a few basic concepts and then learned to apply them pretty quickly. Where’s the thrill of lifetime learning? I wouldn’t envy them.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Off to check the batteries in my satire meter.
mimixco 7y ago
It's satire. Dissing math as irrelevant should have been your first tip off.

patientplatypus 7y ago

Click bait. boo :<

PhilWright 7y ago

The author is often found bashing OOP and praising FP. It's his hobby horse. Every time he needs a few clicks on his blog, up comes the 'OOP is a disaster!'. It's a wonder the world has managed to survive with the billions of lines of OOP out in the wild, running the world!

abc_lisper 7y ago
Yeah, if it was FP it would be millions instead of billions. The point being, there is nothing special about oops or any other new concept which resembles poorly defined real world semantics. Math, patterns are the masters here. And everything should be amenable to computation ie things like reflection should be part of the language and not treated like a carefully handled baby. As soon as that is met, everything naturally collapses into repeating patterns. And we can apply powerful theorems of math we have accumulated over centuries to the work at hand