3 ms·

Eventually you program enough FP, and then imperative starts to hurt your brain. Programming is much like a muscle. As your program in one paradigm, you brain s

Eventually you program enough FP, and then imperative starts to hurt your brain. Programming is much like a muscle. As your program in one paradigm, you brain starts to reason that way, then switch paradigms and you're suddenly struck with a bunch of programming atrophy.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Imperative doesn’t hurt my brain, but because many operations in FP are generally much more succinct and expressive than in an imperative style - writing in imperative instead just makes me groan about all the manual keyboard-typing I’ll have to do (e.g. Linq vs foreach). I really wish I could do more FP, but the languages and libraries I use for my day-job aren’t as-accommodating (mostly C#) - while C# has some FP features, it’s really held-back by the CLR’s type-system - so until that fundamental plumbing gets done we’ll never see features like type-classes, true immutable types, algebraic-types, and so on. Without those features we’ll have to keep on writing more code than is necessary. <digress>Heck, it’s bad enough that IDictionary doesn’t implement IReadOnlyDictionary - or that none of the IReadOnly* types make any guarantees about immutability, which means having to review documentation or disassembly in ILSpy. And the famed non-nullable-reference-types in C# 8.0 is actually all just syntactic sugar for yet more attributes rather than true code-contracts, a built-in Option type, or extending the CLR’s type-system to understand nullability. Grumble.</digress>
- Multicomp 6y ago
  > while C# has some FP features....we’ll never see features like type-classes, true immutable types, algebraic-types, and so on. IIRC you just described some features of F#, excepting type classes. Or at least F# gets you closer to the goal. Maybe the ever elusive F* has that stuff?

3 ms·

Eventually you program enough FP, and then imperative starts to hurt your brain. Programming is much like a muscle. As your program in one paradigm, you brain s

by mcbuilder 6y ago

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Imperative doesn’t hurt my brain, but because many operations in FP are generally much more succinct and expressive than in an imperative style - writing in imperative instead just makes me groan about all the manual keyboard-typing I’ll have to do (e.g. Linq vs foreach). I really wish I could do more FP, but the languages and libraries I use for my day-job aren’t as-accommodating (mostly C#) - while C# has some FP features, it’s really held-back by the CLR’s type-system - so until that fundamental plumbing gets done we’ll never see features like type-classes, true immutable types, algebraic-types, and so on. Without those features we’ll have to keep on writing more code than is necessary. <digress>Heck, it’s bad enough that IDictionary doesn’t implement IReadOnlyDictionary - or that none of the IReadOnly* types make any guarantees about immutability, which means having to review documentation or disassembly in ILSpy. And the famed non-nullable-reference-types in C# 8.0 is actually all just syntactic sugar for yet more attributes rather than true code-contracts, a built-in Option type, or extending the CLR’s type-system to understand nullability. Grumble.</digress>
- Multicomp 6y ago
  > while C# has some FP features....we’ll never see features like type-classes, true immutable types, algebraic-types, and so on. IIRC you just described some features of F#, excepting type classes. Or at least F# gets you closer to the goal. Maybe the ever elusive F* has that stuff?