3 ms·

I don't ninja downvote, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because if you're finding functional programming incredibly difficult, you maybe shouldn't be lecturi

by Cushman 15y ago

I don't ninja downvote, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because if you're finding functional programming incredibly difficult, you maybe shouldn't be lecturing on what it is. As my cousin points out, it's true that it's easy to think of functions as just being macros in a language like C. If you call a function which doesn't have a return value, and which modifies some global state, that's not a "real" function, just a stored procedure. However, if you write a C function which doesn't modify global state, but simply takes an input and returns an output, as even novice programmers do all the time, hey presto— that's the functional paradigm! There's nothing mystical about it, and what the GP is saying is that telling people who have done this that functional programming is something different is fundamentally confusing.

Spyro7 15y ago
"I'd say it's because if you're finding functional programming incredibly difficult, you maybe shouldn't be lecturing on what it is." Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really do appreciate it. It isn't the programming that is the hard thing. Writing some code to do something meaningful is not what is giving me a problem. Actually, it is trying to develop a deep understanding of functional programming that I am finding difficult. Maybe the problem is that I am confusing functional programming with purely functional programming? My apologies to tumult if it came off that I was lecturing in my original post. I find it challenging to get tone perfectly right on the Internet. Face to face conversation or conversation over a phone is far better. I think maybe this entire thread comes down to a question of semantics. When I program in non-functional languages I tend to lean towards using map/reduce type constructs a lot, but I never really thought of that as "functional programming". I guess I always thought that in order to really do functional programming, you really needed to have some kind of deep understanding of it. Maybe if I had a formal computer science background, my perspective would be a little bit different because I would have more easily seen the point that you are making. As it stands, my background is in the social sciences and my knowledge of the science part of computer science is sometimes lacking. Perhaps you are right, I should have been better informed before attempting to inform others. But if I had not typed my original post, then I would have never received your helpful reply and I would still be in the dark!
- Cushman 15y ago
  Maybe the problem is that I am confusing functional programming with purely functional programming? Yeah, you nailed it. Writing a whole program with purely functional constructs is a little mind bending, since procedurally fundamental things like "printf" don't really exist. But that's just something that's much easier to do procedurally; it's hard for everyone, and there's no real secret to understanding it. The important thing to remember is that languages don't have just one paradigm. An imperative language with first-class functions (as most high-level scripting languages have) is functional, just not "as" functional as, say, Haskell. You can use functional concepts in a language which isn't purely functional, just like you can use OO concepts in a language which isn't purely OO. The good news is it sounds like you get functional programming much more than you thought, and you've definitely got the right attitude towards learning. As long as you're open to being corrected, and honest about the limits of your knowledge, there's nothing wrong with trying to teach something you don't fully understand yourself. Teaching is one of the best ways to learn. Keep it up :)
  - dustingetz 15y ago
    +1. I fat thumbed you and downvoted, so sorry!

by Cushman 15y ago

Spyro7 15y ago

"I'd say it's because if you're finding functional programming incredibly difficult, you maybe shouldn't be lecturing on what it is." Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really do appreciate it. It isn't the programming that is the hard thing. Writing some code to do something meaningful is not what is giving me a problem. Actually, it is trying to develop a deep understanding of functional programming that I am finding difficult. Maybe the problem is that I am confusing functional programming with purely functional programming? My apologies to tumult if it came off that I was lecturing in my original post. I find it challenging to get tone perfectly right on the Internet. Face to face conversation or conversation over a phone is far better. I think maybe this entire thread comes down to a question of semantics. When I program in non-functional languages I tend to lean towards using map/reduce type constructs a lot, but I never really thought of that as "functional programming". I guess I always thought that in order to really do functional programming, you really needed to have some kind of deep understanding of it. Maybe if I had a formal computer science background, my perspective would be a little bit different because I would have more easily seen the point that you are making. As it stands, my background is in the social sciences and my knowledge of the science part of computer science is sometimes lacking. Perhaps you are right, I should have been better informed before attempting to inform others. But if I had not typed my original post, then I would have never received your helpful reply and I would still be in the dark!

Cushman 15y ago
Maybe the problem is that I am confusing functional programming with purely functional programming? Yeah, you nailed it. Writing a whole program with purely functional constructs is a little mind bending, since procedurally fundamental things like "printf" don't really exist. But that's just something that's much easier to do procedurally; it's hard for everyone, and there's no real secret to understanding it. The important thing to remember is that languages don't have just one paradigm. An imperative language with first-class functions (as most high-level scripting languages have) is functional, just not "as" functional as, say, Haskell. You can use functional concepts in a language which isn't purely functional, just like you can use OO concepts in a language which isn't purely OO. The good news is it sounds like you get functional programming much more than you thought, and you've definitely got the right attitude towards learning. As long as you're open to being corrected, and honest about the limits of your knowledge, there's nothing wrong with trying to teach something you don't fully understand yourself. Teaching is one of the best ways to learn. Keep it up :)
- dustingetz 15y ago
  +1. I fat thumbed you and downvoted, so sorry!