4 ms·

There's becoming a fashion to write fucking awful shite because it's functional so it must be written that way because it's good because it's functional. People

There's becoming a fashion to write fucking awful shite because it's functional so it must be written that way because it's good because it's functional. People need to get out of this habit now.

recursive 6y ago
All awful shite is functional. All functional is good. So all awful shite is good? I think that might be a tad reductive. Also, concluding that "people" must do anything now isn't useful. No one will be persuaded by your argument. People that are knowingly writing awful shite aren't bothered by that fact. People unknowningly writing awful shite will assume you're talking about other people.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  IMO it's awful shite. Other people seem to think nesting lambdas n deep is not shite. I've worked with code like this - I've been lectured that "it's the functional way", but it isn't, it's just a mess. And often inefficient to boot. You can write fine code functionally but for some reason this kind of horror is considered "the right way". Why? since when did people forget about writing for the human not the computer?
  - recursive 6y ago
    What is awful shite? There's nothing about functional programming that requires nested lambdas. I like functional programming at least a little, but I don't like nested lambdas. If you want to know why someone considers it "right", you'd have to ask someone who considers it to be. Strongly agree re: writing for humans. Actual computer architecture seems a lot closer to imperative with goto, so I'm not sure who would argue that functional code is "for computers".
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      > you'd have to ask someone who considers it to be [right] I did say why - it's because it's "functional style" so it should be done that way. I've been told this to my face. Trouble is, it's plain wrong. > so I'm not sure who would argue that functional code is "for computers". Agreed. I should not have put that.
- verall 6y ago
  I don't think that's what they're saying - what I read (and experience sometimes...) is old C++ programmers that have only known imperative styles get access to functional techniques and don't see the problem sticking stream-lambda-filter-map "loops" within regular imperative for loops. AKA quit giving C++ devs new obfuscation techniques...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

There's becoming a fashion to write fucking awful shite because it's functional so it must be written that way because it's good because it's functional. People need to get out of this habit now.

recursive 6y ago

All awful shite is functional. All functional is good. So all awful shite is good? I think that might be a tad reductive. Also, concluding that "people" must do anything now isn't useful. No one will be persuaded by your argument. People that are knowingly writing awful shite aren't bothered by that fact. People unknowningly writing awful shite will assume you're talking about other people.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
IMO it's awful shite. Other people seem to think nesting lambdas n deep is not shite. I've worked with code like this - I've been lectured that "it's the functional way", but it isn't, it's just a mess. And often inefficient to boot. You can write fine code functionally but for some reason this kind of horror is considered "the right way". Why? since when did people forget about writing for the human not the computer?
- recursive 6y ago
  What is awful shite? There's nothing about functional programming that requires nested lambdas. I like functional programming at least a little, but I don't like nested lambdas. If you want to know why someone considers it "right", you'd have to ask someone who considers it to be. Strongly agree re: writing for humans. Actual computer architecture seems a lot closer to imperative with goto, so I'm not sure who would argue that functional code is "for computers".
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    > you'd have to ask someone who considers it to be [right] I did say why - it's because it's "functional style" so it should be done that way. I've been told this to my face. Trouble is, it's plain wrong. > so I'm not sure who would argue that functional code is "for computers". Agreed. I should not have put that.
verall 6y ago
I don't think that's what they're saying - what I read (and experience sometimes...) is old C++ programmers that have only known imperative styles get access to functional techniques and don't see the problem sticking stream-lambda-filter-map "loops" within regular imperative for loops. AKA quit giving C++ devs new obfuscation techniques...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]