3 ms·

I would like to help you better understand the point here. Please let me know how I might do this.

stephenjudkins 16y ago
From the perspective of a reader not steeped in functional programming, your proposed solution to logging is probably unpersuasive, for the reasons the above commenter articulated better than I can. * When using loaded terms such as "dysfunctional" to describe programming paradigms that the reader may be very comfortable with--and may have produced useful software using--make sure to thoroughly defend this characterization. * Do you believe that there exist extremely intelligent, productive programmers who remain unconvinced of the merits of functional programming? If so, force yourself to adopt a charitable view of their skepticism. If not, what's the point of this presentation? Those committed to functional programming don't need to hear why their approach is superior, since that's just preaching to the choir; you can skip to the implementation section.
- dibblego 16y ago
  * I'll happily defend the use of the term dysfunctional programming. Using this term serves quite a lot of purpose, in particular, among other things, to break a false dichotomy that regularly misleads. Your next question emphasises this, unknowingly I assume. * Yes, there are legitimate complaints about functional programming. However, there are many "arguments" that are "not convinced of the merits", which simply argue from ignorance. I am not interested in discussion at this level, unless it's ultimately constructive i.e. teaching. None of the points made in the original post are compelling. They can all be easily over-turned. I can also make predictions about how much is understood based on the points made (there are many examples of this, raising my confidence that this is simply a very far-out misunderstanding). These predictions would help for teaching. I am offering an invitation to remedy the misunderstanding. I do not care to address arguments from ignorance.

From the perspective of a reader not steeped in functional programming, your proposed solution to logging is probably unpersuasive, for the reasons the above commenter articulated better than I can. * When using loaded terms such as "dysfunctional" to describe programming paradigms that the reader may be very comfortable with--and may have produced useful software using--make sure to thoroughly defend this characterization. * Do you believe that there exist extremely intelligent, productive programmers who remain unconvinced of the merits of functional programming? If so, force yourself to adopt a charitable view of their skepticism. If not, what's the point of this presentation? Those committed to functional programming don't need to hear why their approach is superior, since that's just preaching to the choir; you can skip to the implementation section.

dibblego 16y ago
* I'll happily defend the use of the term dysfunctional programming. Using this term serves quite a lot of purpose, in particular, among other things, to break a false dichotomy that regularly misleads. Your next question emphasises this, unknowingly I assume. * Yes, there are legitimate complaints about functional programming. However, there are many "arguments" that are "not convinced of the merits", which simply argue from ignorance. I am not interested in discussion at this level, unless it's ultimately constructive i.e. teaching. None of the points made in the original post are compelling. They can all be easily over-turned. I can also make predictions about how much is understood based on the points made (there are many examples of this, raising my confidence that this is simply a very far-out misunderstanding). These predictions would help for teaching. I am offering an invitation to remedy the misunderstanding. I do not care to address arguments from ignorance.