36 ms·
"OCaml folks talk about Fancy Type System problems, instead of how to actually build products and applications" I had the impression that's a general problem w
by k__ 6y ago
"OCaml folks talk about Fancy Type System problems, instead of how to actually build products and applications"
I had the impression that's a general problem with FP.
- dimitrios1 6y agoSave for Erlang and Elixir, this tends to be the case with ML-family FP languages, not so much with LISPs, in my opinion of course.
- wilsonthewhale 6y agoagreed. Clojure is probably the most pragmatic FP language in the space.
- nautilus12 6y agoThe problem is there is no middle ground. FP people forget about the product because of FP. Alot of non-FP people forget also forget about their product because their are swamped with unecessary maintanence. There is a middle road in there somewhere where you use just enough FP to avoid the problems you would face without it, without getting totally sucked into making it perfectly consistent.
- fulafel 6y agoFrom my experience in Clojure projects and watching Erlang/Elixir projects, it's not like this at all in those cultures.
- giantDinosaur 6y agoMostly due to interest in FP being driven by intrinsic desire to use it, since it's so rare in enterprise. Anyway, a lot of that discussion filters down into more popular languages, so it's pretty incorrect to think of it as all academic junk or something.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sweeneyrod 6y agoIt is much less of a problem with OCaml than most non-OCaml users would expect. OCaml isn't Haskell; if you want for loops and similar generic imperative features you can have them!
- k__ 6y agoI know and it could very well be that most of the FP crowd I talked to were Haskell/PureScript/Nix/Dhall proponents. OCaml/ReScript/Clojure people seem to be a bit more chill.
- fulafel 6y agoYou've been misimpressed :) Clojure/ClojureScript, Elm, Erlang/Elixir are examples of pragmatic communities and cultures.