3 ms·
I don't find the satirical framing particularly constructive. I feel like a lot of people are going to miss the point, and the article wastes a lot of words jus
by Someone1234 7y ago
I don't find the satirical framing particularly constructive. I feel like a lot of people are going to miss the point, and the article wastes a lot of words just keeping up the pretense.
I do wonder though, why functional programming hasn't taken off in a bigger way? Languages like F# are certainly very good, but their usage remains fairly small, what do they lack that would allow them to take off? Or is it a problem with too few programmers being trained in functional and not being comfortable with it?
- mrkeen 7y agoIt's like the "what have the Romans ever done for us" Monty Python skit. Unless I'm mistaken, garbage collection, types, typeclasses, polymorphism, option-types, lambdas, REPLs etc. all debuted in functional languages.
- stcredzero 7y agoIt could be argued that garbage collection, polymorphism, lambdas, and REPLs were semi-mainstreamed by Smalltalk. That's not to say that it was the first appearance of those features. However, it was a big incursion into mainstream awareness. In 2019, all of those things are squarely mainstream. In the 1990's, lots of programmers regarded them akin to "woo."
- mcguire 7y agoWas Smalltalk ever mainstream? It was explored briefly in the early '90s at IBM (Hi, OS/2 Workplace Shell!), but the general consensus before the project was cancelled was to go with C/C++. I suppose education also saw some use, but various Lisps have most, if not all, of the above features and much more mainstream use in the '80s.
- stcredzero 7y agoWas Smalltalk ever mainstream? I'd say mainstream adjacent, like Lisp. There was once 80% penetration into the Fortune 500. various Lisps have most, if not all, of the above features and much more mainstream use in the '80s. One could argue that Smalltalk was designed in part to be a "Lisp for children." So of course, Lisps already had those features.
- futureastronaut 7y ago> One could argue that Smalltalk was designed in part to be a "Lisp for children." This is the first time I've heard that, do you have a source?
- stcredzero 7y agoThis is the first time I've heard that, do you have a source? This is very widely known inside the language community and beyond. It's mentioned in many keynotes and talks by Alan Kay and others. You can go to the Wikipedia page and search for "children" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk Also, there's this article. Search for "children" http://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/#smalltalkAndChildren http://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/#smalltalkAndC... In one keynote talk, Alan Kay stated that the design goal was to create a common programming substrate usable by everyone, from children, to hobbyists, to enterprise programmers, to researchers. Arguably, they succeeded.
- futureastronaut 7y agoI'm aware of Smalltalk being promoted in educational settings. What I wanted to know more about was "Lisp for children" which I've never heard before.
- lispm 7y agoYes, sounds strange. Actually the programming language LOGO would be that: LISP for children.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- RickJWagner 7y agoIMHO, it's harder to read. I love the idea of Erlang (really like Joe Armstrong's book) but it just isn't readable in quantity compared to OOP languages, IMHO.