3 ms·

>> The world is not functional > What does this even mean? If the world is not functional, then what is it? The world is full of special cases, of corner case

by wott 7y ago

>> The world is not functional > What does this even mean? If the world is not functional, then what is it? The world is full of special cases, of corner cases, of exceptions, of holes, of particular conditions, of differences for first or last element, and other irregularities; it is also full of sequential events. Applying a function to a starting set, to produce a resulting set or value is very lean with clean nice mathematical objects and relations, but not with many real-world problems. > And Haskellers are the ones getting called “elitist”! Well, one may say that answering with questions could fit the bill...

tome 7y ago
> The world is full of special cases, of corner cases, of exceptions, of holes, of particular conditions, of differences for first or last element, and other irregularities; it is also full of sequential events. True > Applying a function to a starting set, to produce a resulting set or value is very lean with clean nice mathematical objects and relations True > but not with many real-world problems. Debatable, but in any case a non-sequitur. Are you sure you're talking about functional languages as they're used in reality? I once wrote a translator between an absurdly messy XML schema called FpML (Financial products Markup Language) and a heterogeneous collection of custom data types with all sorts of "special cases, corner cases, exceptions, holes, etc.". I wrote it in Haskell. It was a perfect fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FpML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FpML
yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
> The world is full of special cases, of corner cases, of exceptions, of holes, of particular conditions, of differences for first or last element, and other irregularities; it is also full of sequential events. Yes. All of which are modelled in Haskell in a pretty straightforward manner. I’d argue Haskell models adversity like this better than most languages. > but not with many real-world problems. Haskell is a general purpose language. People use it to solve real world problems every day. I do. My colleagues do. A huge amount of people do. > Well, one may say that answering with questions could fit the bill... I see. So trying to define the terms to enable constructive discourse is elitist. Got it. If you want me to be more concrete and assertive, fine. No problem. Here we go. You are wrong.

by wott 7y ago

tome 7y ago

> The world is full of special cases, of corner cases, of exceptions, of holes, of particular conditions, of differences for first or last element, and other irregularities; it is also full of sequential events. True > Applying a function to a starting set, to produce a resulting set or value is very lean with clean nice mathematical objects and relations True > but not with many real-world problems. Debatable, but in any case a non-sequitur. Are you sure you're talking about functional languages as they're used in reality? I once wrote a translator between an absurdly messy XML schema called FpML (Financial products Markup Language) and a heterogeneous collection of custom data types with all sorts of "special cases, corner cases, exceptions, holes, etc.". I wrote it in Haskell. It was a perfect fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FpML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FpML

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago

> The world is full of special cases, of corner cases, of exceptions, of holes, of particular conditions, of differences for first or last element, and other irregularities; it is also full of sequential events. Yes. All of which are modelled in Haskell in a pretty straightforward manner. I’d argue Haskell models adversity like this better than most languages. > but not with many real-world problems. Haskell is a general purpose language. People use it to solve real world problems every day. I do. My colleagues do. A huge amount of people do. > Well, one may say that answering with questions could fit the bill... I see. So trying to define the terms to enable constructive discourse is elitist. Got it. If you want me to be more concrete and assertive, fine. No problem. Here we go. You are wrong.