4 ms·

If you decide to dismiss a position by saying that it chose the wrong definition, you're not contributing anything useful. "Pure" functional programming is not

If you decide to dismiss a position by saying that it chose the wrong definition, you're not contributing anything useful. "Pure" functional programming is not more functional programming than "Functional programming", the adjective specializes it and makes it more narrow. I don't really care what a wiki article says. I can run a survey of my colleagues if you want? As for calling me a junior, well, you don't know how much experience I have, do you? It's probably more than you, though. I've used and participated in the development of functional programming languages for over a decade at this point. Unsolicited advice: Sophomoric pedantry isn't a good look.

leafboi 6y ago
>Unsolicited advice: Sophomoric pedantry isn't a good look. Starting conflict and calling people "dogmatic" and voting people down is not a way to win people over. I can see a number of paths this road could have gone down where you can easily get another person to agree with your ideas as an alternative viewpoint despite a wikipedia article saying otherwise. You chose to take none of these roads, maybe largely because you don't know how to do this. >I don't really care what a wiki article says. Right because your opinion is the best opinion and only opinion that matters. The community opinion and the majority opinion has no relevance to you because you participated in "functional development for over a decade." Whoop dee doo. I chose a definition of functional programming that has huge relevance to the community at large. You on the other hand... haven't even stated your definition yet. Unsolicited advice: Arrogance and the inability to admit your own mistakes is not a good look. A decade of experience does not earn you the right to act like an ass hole nor does it make you a good programmer.
- bitdizzy 6y ago
  You chose a definition among many and then dismissed the submission as "confused" because it does not meet your definition. I noted that your definition would preclude ML functions from being called functions. Your response was that ML wasn't purely functional, but that doesn't make it not functional. The pure in "pure functional" doesn't "to the exclusion of non-functional", it is simply a narrower category. Considering that ML is one of the most impactful functional programming languages both in theory and practice, I think it's right to call that absurd and dogmatic. If you take it as a personal attack that I called your argument absurd, I don't know what to say. Maybe grow a little bit of skin? > You on the other hand... haven't even stated your definition yet. I don't need to provide a definition to find a flaw in yours. I did not come into this submission looking to smugly dismiss the topic at hand with my obviously irrelevant preferences for terminology. You did.
  - leafboi 6y ago
    >You chose a definition among many and then dismissed the submission as "confused" because it does not meet your definition. My definition? I quoted wikipedia. A lot of people use "my definition" Basically under "your" definition C++ and go might as well be a functional programming language. >Considering that ML is one of the most impactful functional programming languages both in theory and practice, I think it's right to call that absurd and dogmatic. If you take it as a personal attack that I called your argument absurd, I don't know what to say. Maybe grow a little bit of skin? Why grow skin? I literally didn't care. I just decided to call you junior because you were acting like one. It seems like you cared more. I was just explaining to the other guy why I called you a junior. I recognize the attack but I literally don't care, but that doesn't mean I won't respond or address it. >I don't need to provide a definition to find a flaw in yours. I did not come into this submission looking to smugly dismiss the topic at hand with my obviously irrelevant preferences for terminology. You did. My Definition doesn't have flaws. Like I said, if I expand it to encompass mutability (as you have) then you can place Go and C++ on the functional pedestal. I haven't used ML but clearly a language like ML only allows mutability as a small exception that's rarely used otherwise there's no point to classify ML as functional. But let's get back on topic. You literally said that no PL theorist would agree with me. But look at wikipedia. Apparently many do. So you're wrong.
    - bitdizzy 6y ago
      I don't take wikipedia to be authoritative about anything but I'll bite. > Functional programming is sometimes treated as synonymous with purely functional programming, a subset of functional programming which treats all functions as deterministic mathematical functions, or pure functions. Well, obviously in this context the author of the submission wasn't using that definition. So you coming in and dismissing the conversation because sometimes people mean "pure functional programming" when they say "functional programming" is clearly erroneous. I know when people make this conflation, often when they're talking about Haskell. When talking about ML, no one would take that synonym. Context matters. I just looked, you provided a set theoretic definition of functions, the wikiwand one. You chose a poor definition for the topic at hand. In most mathematical settings it would be a perfectly fine definition, but not here. Context matters. Here are the problems with it: It assumes an interpretation in sets when there are a plurality of interpretations of functions qua functional programming which are not compatible with set theoretic models. For example, functions in homotopy type theory have higher dimensional structure than just being elements of a set. Functions in domains have more structure than just the extensional mapping from inputs to outputs. Your chosen definition also includes non-computable functions which are simply not admissible in this context. So your definition is simultaneously too restrictive and too lax. You seem to be confused by the existence of multiple definitions and how they are appropriate in context.

leafboi 6y ago

>Unsolicited advice: Sophomoric pedantry isn't a good look. Starting conflict and calling people "dogmatic" and voting people down is not a way to win people over. I can see a number of paths this road could have gone down where you can easily get another person to agree with your ideas as an alternative viewpoint despite a wikipedia article saying otherwise. You chose to take none of these roads, maybe largely because you don't know how to do this. >I don't really care what a wiki article says. Right because your opinion is the best opinion and only opinion that matters. The community opinion and the majority opinion has no relevance to you because you participated in "functional development for over a decade." Whoop dee doo. I chose a definition of functional programming that has huge relevance to the community at large. You on the other hand... haven't even stated your definition yet. Unsolicited advice: Arrogance and the inability to admit your own mistakes is not a good look. A decade of experience does not earn you the right to act like an ass hole nor does it make you a good programmer.

bitdizzy 6y ago
You chose a definition among many and then dismissed the submission as "confused" because it does not meet your definition. I noted that your definition would preclude ML functions from being called functions. Your response was that ML wasn't purely functional, but that doesn't make it not functional. The pure in "pure functional" doesn't "to the exclusion of non-functional", it is simply a narrower category. Considering that ML is one of the most impactful functional programming languages both in theory and practice, I think it's right to call that absurd and dogmatic. If you take it as a personal attack that I called your argument absurd, I don't know what to say. Maybe grow a little bit of skin? > You on the other hand... haven't even stated your definition yet. I don't need to provide a definition to find a flaw in yours. I did not come into this submission looking to smugly dismiss the topic at hand with my obviously irrelevant preferences for terminology. You did.
- leafboi 6y ago
  >You chose a definition among many and then dismissed the submission as "confused" because it does not meet your definition. My definition? I quoted wikipedia. A lot of people use "my definition" Basically under "your" definition C++ and go might as well be a functional programming language. >Considering that ML is one of the most impactful functional programming languages both in theory and practice, I think it's right to call that absurd and dogmatic. If you take it as a personal attack that I called your argument absurd, I don't know what to say. Maybe grow a little bit of skin? Why grow skin? I literally didn't care. I just decided to call you junior because you were acting like one. It seems like you cared more. I was just explaining to the other guy why I called you a junior. I recognize the attack but I literally don't care, but that doesn't mean I won't respond or address it. >I don't need to provide a definition to find a flaw in yours. I did not come into this submission looking to smugly dismiss the topic at hand with my obviously irrelevant preferences for terminology. You did. My Definition doesn't have flaws. Like I said, if I expand it to encompass mutability (as you have) then you can place Go and C++ on the functional pedestal. I haven't used ML but clearly a language like ML only allows mutability as a small exception that's rarely used otherwise there's no point to classify ML as functional. But let's get back on topic. You literally said that no PL theorist would agree with me. But look at wikipedia. Apparently many do. So you're wrong.
  - bitdizzy 6y ago
    I don't take wikipedia to be authoritative about anything but I'll bite. > Functional programming is sometimes treated as synonymous with purely functional programming, a subset of functional programming which treats all functions as deterministic mathematical functions, or pure functions. Well, obviously in this context the author of the submission wasn't using that definition. So you coming in and dismissing the conversation because sometimes people mean "pure functional programming" when they say "functional programming" is clearly erroneous. I know when people make this conflation, often when they're talking about Haskell. When talking about ML, no one would take that synonym. Context matters. I just looked, you provided a set theoretic definition of functions, the wikiwand one. You chose a poor definition for the topic at hand. In most mathematical settings it would be a perfectly fine definition, but not here. Context matters. Here are the problems with it: It assumes an interpretation in sets when there are a plurality of interpretations of functions qua functional programming which are not compatible with set theoretic models. For example, functions in homotopy type theory have higher dimensional structure than just being elements of a set. Functions in domains have more structure than just the extensional mapping from inputs to outputs. Your chosen definition also includes non-computable functions which are simply not admissible in this context. So your definition is simultaneously too restrictive and too lax. You seem to be confused by the existence of multiple definitions and how they are appropriate in context.