3 ms·

Try to not just stick to feelings. Feelings often indicate a lack of understanding. The ultimate goal is to coalesce that feeling into total understanding. The

Try to not just stick to feelings. Feelings often indicate a lack of understanding. The ultimate goal is to coalesce that feeling into total understanding. The definition of FP is fuzzy and it feels like a "feeling." However, as humans we can formally define the word with an exact definition that fits the "feeling." We've already done it with mathematics and it improved our understanding by a huge margin.

gmfawcett 7y ago
I agree in general that fuzziness isn't desirable. :) But the lack of a proper and widely accepted definition of FP is a perennial issue, and I don't see a resolution in sight. It's not a lack of clear understanding in my opinion, but rather a lack of consensus, and I'm not confident that FP will ever coalesce into a singular definition. What I see in practice is that we have various tribes, using various FP languages, who each define FP in terms of the languages they use (e.g., an FP lang must have certain type-system features, or be non-strict, or etc.). To put it crudely, FP is the thing that we do in our language, and which we perceive others as not doing. I've used the term "tribe" intentionally, as I do think that tribal thinking has had a role to play in the muddying of the term. Given this, I think it's reasonable to demote FP to the level of "feeling", at least in general conversation. Discussions within a certain language community, or in the context of a book or article, are a different matter of course since a formal, contextual definition can be given there.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >Given this, I think it's reasonable to demote FP to the level of "feeling", at least in general conversation. Discussions within a certain language community, or in the context of a book or article, are a different matter of course since a formal, contextual definition can be given there. This was largely what people thought of mathematics before euclid formalized geometry. An exact definition exists for FP as it did for geometry and like geometry we will instantly recognize the definition of FP when someone finally decides to translate our intuition into formalization.

gmfawcett 7y ago

I agree in general that fuzziness isn't desirable. :) But the lack of a proper and widely accepted definition of FP is a perennial issue, and I don't see a resolution in sight. It's not a lack of clear understanding in my opinion, but rather a lack of consensus, and I'm not confident that FP will ever coalesce into a singular definition. What I see in practice is that we have various tribes, using various FP languages, who each define FP in terms of the languages they use (e.g., an FP lang must have certain type-system features, or be non-strict, or etc.). To put it crudely, FP is the thing that we do in our language, and which we perceive others as not doing. I've used the term "tribe" intentionally, as I do think that tribal thinking has had a role to play in the muddying of the term. Given this, I think it's reasonable to demote FP to the level of "feeling", at least in general conversation. Discussions within a certain language community, or in the context of a book or article, are a different matter of course since a formal, contextual definition can be given there.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>Given this, I think it's reasonable to demote FP to the level of "feeling", at least in general conversation. Discussions within a certain language community, or in the context of a book or article, are a different matter of course since a formal, contextual definition can be given there. This was largely what people thought of mathematics before euclid formalized geometry. An exact definition exists for FP as it did for geometry and like geometry we will instantly recognize the definition of FP when someone finally decides to translate our intuition into formalization.