3 ms·

No, definitely not. FP concepts are catching on in mainstream languages. Lots of languages now support optionals instead of implicit nulls, maps and filters ove

No, definitely not. FP concepts are catching on in mainstream languages. Lots of languages now support optionals instead of implicit nulls, maps and filters over lists, higher-order functions, etc. These all originated in FP and have just made their way over to the more mainstream imperative languages. Not only that, but FP is must more a state of mind than a set of language features. You can write functional code in practically any language, really, although some of them will make it easier than others.

jahaja 7y ago
Looking in from the outside, I just can't see how a project written in most esoteric-leaning languages can scale beyond like 5 developers without becoming an unreadable mess simply due to the expressiveness of the language.
- DonaldPShimoda 7y ago
  > I just can't see how a project written in most esoteric-leaning languages can scale Well what do you mean by "esoteric-leaning"? It seems like you just mean "languages I'm not used to", which is a very limiting perspective, but perhaps I've misinterpreted you here. Obviously nobody thinks you should write your production code in Brainfuck (which is an actual esoteric language). But there are plenty of places that use functional languages in production. Functional language are not esoteric by nature — they're just different. It's like calling SQL an esoteric language just because you're used to Java. Jane Street uses OCaml for everything, Facebook uses Haskell and ReasonML (which is really OCaml), Galois uses Haskell, Microsoft has F# and F* and a Haskell group, GitHub uses Haskell... There are plenty of examples of functional languages in industry. They're not esoteric, and they do scale when implemented correctly (same as anything else). > without becoming an unreadable mess simply due to the expressiveness of the language. ...? I don't mean this rudely, but are you sure you know what "expressiveness" means? More expressive languages are not inherently more or less readable than other languages. They simply enable you to do things you couldn't do in those other languages. C is more expressive than, say, x86 assembly by the inclusion of features like types. Do types make your code less readable? I don't think so. Java is more expressive than C by the inclusion of classes. Do classes inherently make your code less readable? I don't think so. Haskell is more expressive than Java by the inclusion of higher-kinded types. Do HKTs inherently make your code less readable? Not if you know what they are and how to use them — which you would if you use a language that supports them. So I don't think so.

jahaja 7y ago

Looking in from the outside, I just can't see how a project written in most esoteric-leaning languages can scale beyond like 5 developers without becoming an unreadable mess simply due to the expressiveness of the language.

DonaldPShimoda 7y ago
> I just can't see how a project written in most esoteric-leaning languages can scale Well what do you mean by "esoteric-leaning"? It seems like you just mean "languages I'm not used to", which is a very limiting perspective, but perhaps I've misinterpreted you here. Obviously nobody thinks you should write your production code in Brainfuck (which is an actual esoteric language). But there are plenty of places that use functional languages in production. Functional language are not esoteric by nature — they're just different. It's like calling SQL an esoteric language just because you're used to Java. Jane Street uses OCaml for everything, Facebook uses Haskell and ReasonML (which is really OCaml), Galois uses Haskell, Microsoft has F# and F* and a Haskell group, GitHub uses Haskell... There are plenty of examples of functional languages in industry. They're not esoteric, and they do scale when implemented correctly (same as anything else). > without becoming an unreadable mess simply due to the expressiveness of the language. ...? I don't mean this rudely, but are you sure you know what "expressiveness" means? More expressive languages are not inherently more or less readable than other languages. They simply enable you to do things you couldn't do in those other languages. C is more expressive than, say, x86 assembly by the inclusion of features like types. Do types make your code less readable? I don't think so. Java is more expressive than C by the inclusion of classes. Do classes inherently make your code less readable? I don't think so. Haskell is more expressive than Java by the inclusion of higher-kinded types. Do HKTs inherently make your code less readable? Not if you know what they are and how to use them — which you would if you use a language that supports them. So I don't think so.