4 ms·
No, it just means the people that tend to be attracted to these types of languages. Easy to get started languages that hide much of the inner workings from you
by aoms 5y ago
No, it just means the people that tend to be attracted to these types of languages.
Easy to get started languages that hide much of the inner workings from you as a dev.
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoI don't believe Go belongs in that category at all, mind you. And I'm not convinced that the fairly major internet presences using it heavily would put it in that bracket either. I concede (having a fair amount of past experience of functional programming languages, including Orwell, which influenced Haskell) that choosing a functional programming language for development helps you pre-select people who are well-educated in CS concepts. But I am far from convinced that it's an approach that is particularly likely to lead to a crack team of business-focussed developers. It's just as likely to lead to a herd of cats.
- foldr 5y agoHaskell hides far more of the inner workings than Python, JS or Go. There's a huge gap between the semantics of a non-strict, pure functional language and the actual execution model.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago(Username checks out)
- tlavoie 5y agoSure, except it should be foldl' instead. StackOverflow is thataway --> Edit for reason: https://wiki.haskell.org/Foldr_Foldl_Foldl https://wiki.haskell.org/Foldr_Foldl_Foldl'