3 ms·

While I could get onboard with functional languages being more user friendly I didn't find the motivation to be compelling. > Ambiguous functions argument posi

by ollysb 6y ago

While I could get onboard with functional languages being more user friendly I didn't find the motivation to be compelling. > Ambiguous functions argument positions It just seems to be advocating for named arguments, something which the majority of languages (OO or FP) support these days. You could say that requiring named parameters is a feature but it's hard to get excited about. > Not Intellisense friendly I use Elm and Elixir, both of which have decent autocomplete in vscode (and I believe many other editors). Critique aside I definitely applaud more towards increasing FP adoption. I think Elm has brought many good ideas to the table already (though admittedly it's bias is more towards ideal than practical). On the flip side Elixir is very pragmatic and easy to get going with for developers coming from OO languages.

dnautics 6y ago
Elixir is very good about function positions, too, by being consistent in it's stdlib, and by pinning structs to modules. Almost all library writers adhere to the convention.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  People are also consistent because of the pipe operator which was there since the very beginning. So everyone expects functions to work with chaining correctly. That's why you get params that get changed a lot as the first parameter etc.