4 ms·

What empirical evidence exists for that claim? I agree with it, but I'm mostly generalizing from own experience.

• 323 4y ago
  The fact that it's not wide spread is the empirical evidence. > Clearly, there is an obstacle to the acceptance of FP. I think I know what it is. The functional paradigm is an unnatural way for human beings to think. People normally view the world as comprising objects. Nobody views the world as comprising functions, unless he is trained to do so. https://richardeng.medium.com/fp-is-for-nerds-6ed1ca43bb34 https://richardeng.medium.com/fp-is-for-nerds-6ed1ca43bb34 > When it comes to functional programming, a lot of people start with, “But that’s totally unnatural!” Functional programming is compared to working “backwards” and some complain that it’s more about solving puzzles rather than working with code. https://bulldogjob.pl/readme/functional-programming-does-it-work-in-real-life https://bulldogjob.pl/readme/functional-programming-does-it-...
  • mejutoco 4y ago
    Those sources seem to talk about the functional paradigm, when your original claim was about lisp syntax. It took me reading Practical common lisp to appreciate the Lisp origins of Python (down to documentation strings and a lot of other details). As a counter datapoint, I have seen people responsible for designing custom parts in Autocad (back in the day when you had to issue commands) master the lisp syntax without giving it a second thought. I found it weird for 5 minutes when I was maybe 12-14 (we had some course about it in school, I don't remember exactly)