6 ms·
In a functional world persistence (e.g memory) cannot be a thing. The case is convincing, but it requires you to reject your own, human, faculties. Makes the
by ukj 7y ago
In a functional world persistence (e.g memory) cannot be a thing.
The case is convincing, but it requires you to reject your own, human, faculties.
Makes the use/expression of language rather awkward when you can't remember any words.
- tome 7y agoThanks for your input, Euthyphro!
- ukj 7y agoMy knack for spotting performative contradictions didn't sway you towards Deskartes?
- kchamplewski 7y ago> In a functional world persistence (e.g memory) cannot be a thing. Why not? To give a functional Haskell flavoured example, I can use the Reader and Writer monads (which are functional) to create a whole bunch of operations which write to and read from a shared collection of data. That feels a lot like memory to me. Indeed, the Reader monad is defined as: > Computations which read values from a shared environment. I just don't understand the whole "you can't have memory / order of operations / persistence / whatever else" as an argument against functional concepts when they have been implemented in functional ways decades ago. The modern Haskell implementation of the writer monad is an implementation of 1995 paper. Edit: it looks like who I responded to doesn't actually want to have a reasonable discussion, but for anyone else reading along, it's entirely possible to have functional "state" or "memory" - what makes it functional is that the state / memory must be explicitly acknowledged. Trying do dismiss functional computation in this way is essentially a no true Scotsman; functional computation is useless because it can't do X (X being memory or persistence or whatever), but when someone presents a functional computation that does do X, it's somehow not a "real" functional computation precisely because it does X. Redefining functional computation as "something that can't do X" doesn't help anyone, and doesn't actually help with discussing the pros and cons of functional programming since you're not actually discussing functional computation but some inaccurate designed-to-be-useless definition mislabeled as functional computation.
- tome 7y agoJust FYI, you're debating with a troll.
- ukj 7y agoIf I am Euthyphro, then you are Socrates - no? I thought Socrates was the troll.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ukj 7y agoWhat is this thing that you reading from and writing to? It sounds mutable.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y agoI’m sorry if immutability is a new concept to you, but you can read from one state, and write to a new state. There you go. No mutation!
- ukj 7y agoWriting state is the definition of mutation. It's what all data storage systems do. An immutable data store sounds pretty useless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_%28computer_science%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_%28computer_scienc...
- yakshaving_jgt 7y agoIt’s fine for you to think that. That’s not going to stop other people from finding these concepts useful though. Once again, you are free to ignore the things you don’t understand. Your trolling is mostly harmless.
- ukj 7y ago