3 ms·
IMHO Scala did more for practical FP than any other PL except for maybe JS as it is basically bastardized Lisp.
by AzzieElbab 4y ago
IMHO Scala did more for practical FP than any other PL except for maybe JS as it is basically bastardized Lisp.
- skavi 4y agoI do not think it is reasonable to call JS a Functional programming language.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoNo but it popularized practical functional programming through react.
- imtringued 4y agoReact functional components have nothing to do with functional programming. Hooks are stored in global variables.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoIs Erlang functional programming? Anything in an Ets table is a global variable. There's even mutable state hiding in the process dictionary! You might have to access a database, which is global state! The horrors!
- zelphirkalt 4y agoIn Joe Armstrong's own words: Erlang is either the most object-oriented or the least object-oriented language. It also very much discourages mutation and favors pattern matching and pure functions, so I would say it is quite FP in nature.
- kaba0 4y agoAnd Haskell compiles down to C- as a step, which is as imperative as it gets. I don’t see how an implementation detail determines the degree of FP.
- zelphirkalt 4y agoReact does have little to do with it, I would say. Its components are quite the opposite of FP actually. They are closer to OOP bundling state and behavior together.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoI think Erlang did more for practical fp than scala.