3 ms·

You fail to account for change, and time. As functional languages often do. /s Tuples have coupling order. That's a fact. So if you have tuple [a, b, c, d], t

by slver 6y ago

You fail to account for change, and time. As functional languages often do. /s Tuples have coupling order. That's a fact. So if you have tuple [a, b, c, d], then you can maybe extend this by adding ...e, f] at the end, if your parser can ignore extraneous items. But even if your parser can do that, you still can't remove b without BC breaks, because then the rest get shifted, and you have a mess. This is not a problem when the tuple exists only in the confines of some singular unit of code, that gets refactored together. But if it escapes, you have a problem. Because over time, you'll want to change this tuple, and you can't refactor the entire world at once (which is more often than not the issue of functional programming and why it can't scale well).

pyrale 6y ago
You seem to believe that, because tuples are available in a language, they will be used everywhere. And indeed, that wouldn't be great. From my mileage in this industry, though, the cases you describe simply don't happen. As you said, tuples aren't used in interfaces, because developers know better than to do that. > which is more often than not the issue of functional programming and why it can't scale well I don't know what you've done with FP, but in your last few posts, you've been making claims about it that simply don't match my experience. There's not much to discuss without specifics, though, so maybe you could expand about the cases where you had issues with it?
- slver 6y ago
  I wish tuples didn't exist in interfaces, unfortunately every function and method argument list is one. /s I appreciate your point that people try and avoid tuples where not appropriate, but the question is why even have that opportunity, when we can nudge the community to use equivalent "named attribute tuples". Regarding scale, FP scales great for certain types of problems. But it's not great at modeling or encouraging boundaries. Imagine doing FP where all your types cease to exist for part of your codebase, but also you need to interact with the code where the types are. Even more, imagine if those two modules may fail independently (i.e. so you lose one of them). Anyway I think I'm becoming too abstract. Basically the FP world needs to be more like Erlang. Erlang is functional but keeps units bounded (in processes).
  - pyrale 6y ago
    > but the question is why even have that opportunity I have provided a valuable use case above, and creating a structure allowing convenient use cases while preventing inconvenient ones would be extremely costly. > But it's not great at modeling or encouraging boundaries. What features are you missing specifically? You cited the need to "keep units bounded", but most FP langs provide the ability to contain implementation details within modules, by not exporting them. > Imagine doing FP where all your types cease to exist for part of your codebase, but also you need to interact with the code where the types are. Even more, imagine if those two modules may fail independently (i.e. so you lose one of them). I've had to deal with antiquated DBs containing unreliable data using flaky drivers, and while working with legacy can be painful sometimes, the FP paradigm caused no specific trouble.

by slver 6y ago

pyrale 6y ago

You seem to believe that, because tuples are available in a language, they will be used everywhere. And indeed, that wouldn't be great. From my mileage in this industry, though, the cases you describe simply don't happen. As you said, tuples aren't used in interfaces, because developers know better than to do that. > which is more often than not the issue of functional programming and why it can't scale well I don't know what you've done with FP, but in your last few posts, you've been making claims about it that simply don't match my experience. There's not much to discuss without specifics, though, so maybe you could expand about the cases where you had issues with it?

slver 6y ago
I wish tuples didn't exist in interfaces, unfortunately every function and method argument list is one. /s I appreciate your point that people try and avoid tuples where not appropriate, but the question is why even have that opportunity, when we can nudge the community to use equivalent "named attribute tuples". Regarding scale, FP scales great for certain types of problems. But it's not great at modeling or encouraging boundaries. Imagine doing FP where all your types cease to exist for part of your codebase, but also you need to interact with the code where the types are. Even more, imagine if those two modules may fail independently (i.e. so you lose one of them). Anyway I think I'm becoming too abstract. Basically the FP world needs to be more like Erlang. Erlang is functional but keeps units bounded (in processes).
- pyrale 6y ago
  > but the question is why even have that opportunity I have provided a valuable use case above, and creating a structure allowing convenient use cases while preventing inconvenient ones would be extremely costly. > But it's not great at modeling or encouraging boundaries. What features are you missing specifically? You cited the need to "keep units bounded", but most FP langs provide the ability to contain implementation details within modules, by not exporting them. > Imagine doing FP where all your types cease to exist for part of your codebase, but also you need to interact with the code where the types are. Even more, imagine if those two modules may fail independently (i.e. so you lose one of them). I've had to deal with antiquated DBs containing unreliable data using flaky drivers, and while working with legacy can be painful sometimes, the FP paradigm caused no specific trouble.