3 ms·
I believe that you're right about why languages aren't chosen, but miss the alternative explanation. Languages are chosen for speed of deployment and ease of u
by Icathian 7y ago
I believe that you're right about why languages aren't chosen, but miss the alternative explanation. Languages are chosen for speed of deployment and ease of use, almost nothing else. From the dawn of time, when C and Unix beat out Lisp, all the way to modern JavaScript, the tool that solves a given set of problem quickest and easiest wins regardless of 'merit'. Worse is better, all the way down.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI agree, but there's one more twist: Problems are different. Languages are chosen for ease of writing specific programs, not for "general programming". I think, then, that FP is great for certain kinds of problems, and not so good for others. If you've got an FP problem, reach for an FP language. If you don't, don't. What's an FP problem? Someone here (I wish I remembered who, I'd give credit where due) said "if you can think of your program as a pipe", then FP is appropriate. If the nature of your problem has a lot of state, FP probably isn't the answer. (Note well: problems themselves can have a lot of state. It isn't always just the implementation - the problem itself may demand it.)
- goto11 7y agoFully agree! I just wanted to emphasize that what makes a language the quickest and easiest for a given task is typically more due to ecosystem or platform integration than to the "geeky qualities" like advanced language constructs.