4 ms·
I would use Occam's razor with this idea and posit that it is much more like that its a lack of overall mindshare with functional programming than with the natu
by cubano 5y ago
I would use Occam's razor with this idea and posit that it is much more like that its a lack of overall mindshare with functional programming than with the nature of language abstractions.
Don't tell me that Lisp ever achieved cool-kid status that a thousand different libs wouldn't pop up basically overnight.
- strawhatguy 5y agoIf the premise is that you limit your dependencies have low maintenance code, you'd probably not include many (any?) of said thousands of libs. Also it isn't about the number of libs, but how often they change.
- fiddlerwoaroof 5y agoI don’t think this is entirely right: there are plenty of languages with similarish mindshare that don’t have this: just building a Haskell project, for example, can be a nightmare if they hasn’t been maintained. Scala also has this issue, despite having a similar marketshare as Clojure.
- fulafel 5y agoThe thing about allowing libraries being done is a bit more nuanced than not having lots of different libraries doing the same thing. There are lots of competing libraries even now and existing libraries do get surpassed in popularity. But they keep working and don't become unusable or problematic as often as in other cultures.