5 ms·

I think some things that people throw under the FP umbrella are valuable and pragmatic and some aren't. My point is FP isn't a monolith and the term is a bit o

I think some things that people throw under the FP umbrella are valuable and pragmatic and some aren't. My point is FP isn't a monolith and the term is a bit of a Rorschach test. I remember a time when Lisp was considered the quintessential FP language and was taught in schools as an example of the paradigm. Today, Haskell adherents would scoff at the idea that Lisp is anything but a procedural language dressed up with some casual nods to the lambda calculus. So your question is somewhat meaningless without qualification, and asking me to set the terms of debate is odd given you're the one who posed the question in the first place.

avgcorrection 4y ago
Let’s remember that you are the one who quoted the part about FP and how you took issue with it. But in a very strange way: the quote is wrong, not because people don’t know about the benefits of FP but because they don’t… know why they should “care”. But this is not a value judgement, you said (being apparently useless to the working programmer is not a value judgement). So you have some kind of opinion about FP. It felt natural to ask exactly what that opinion is, since it’s stated so indirectly (care). But now FP is a “Rorschach test” and anyone who wants to discuss it with you needs to tediously lay out exactly what kind of FP they mean by FP. Even though you are the one who prominently brought up FP in your comment (even though perhaps the point you were driving at was why one should care about conc. programming). And even though you had a handy reference in “Why FP Matters” that you referenced yourself. FP is certainly not a Rorschach test compared to your obfuscated and indirect style of writing on this specific topic.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > (being apparently useless to the working programmer is not a value judgement) Except I never said that. You seem to be very confused about what I wrote and frankly seem to have an axe to grind. I suggest you read it again. Mine was a point about articles advocating for FP, not about FP itself. > So you have some kind of opinion about FP. No, I don't, which is why I was reluctant to being baited into this discussion in the first place. Clearly I should've followed my instincts. I have an opinion about the author's interpretation of the Why FP Matters essay, and I have an opinion about the structure and delivery of their message. I have an opinion about articles advocating for FP. I don't have a strong opinion about FP itself. That's the difference between critiquing the content of an argument vs the structure of an argument. Yes that's a subtle distinction. > And even though you had a handy reference in “Why FP Matters” that you referenced yourself. Did you actually read the article? Because I did. The article cited that essay, not me. My criticism is in the author's interpretation of that essay. > FP is certainly not a Rorschach test compared to your obfuscated and indirect style of writing on this specific topic. And now it's getting personal. This will be my last response in this conversation. Carry on arguing without me if you like.

avgcorrection 4y ago

Let’s remember that you are the one who quoted the part about FP and how you took issue with it. But in a very strange way: the quote is wrong, not because people don’t know about the benefits of FP but because they don’t… know why they should “care”. But this is not a value judgement, you said (being apparently useless to the working programmer is not a value judgement). So you have some kind of opinion about FP. It felt natural to ask exactly what that opinion is, since it’s stated so indirectly (care). But now FP is a “Rorschach test” and anyone who wants to discuss it with you needs to tediously lay out exactly what kind of FP they mean by FP. Even though you are the one who prominently brought up FP in your comment (even though perhaps the point you were driving at was why one should care about conc. programming). And even though you had a handy reference in “Why FP Matters” that you referenced yourself. FP is certainly not a Rorschach test compared to your obfuscated and indirect style of writing on this specific topic.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> (being apparently useless to the working programmer is not a value judgement) Except I never said that. You seem to be very confused about what I wrote and frankly seem to have an axe to grind. I suggest you read it again. Mine was a point about articles advocating for FP, not about FP itself. > So you have some kind of opinion about FP. No, I don't, which is why I was reluctant to being baited into this discussion in the first place. Clearly I should've followed my instincts. I have an opinion about the author's interpretation of the Why FP Matters essay, and I have an opinion about the structure and delivery of their message. I have an opinion about articles advocating for FP. I don't have a strong opinion about FP itself. That's the difference between critiquing the content of an argument vs the structure of an argument. Yes that's a subtle distinction. > And even though you had a handy reference in “Why FP Matters” that you referenced yourself. Did you actually read the article? Because I did. The article cited that essay, not me. My criticism is in the author's interpretation of that essay. > FP is certainly not a Rorschach test compared to your obfuscated and indirect style of writing on this specific topic. And now it's getting personal. This will be my last response in this conversation. Carry on arguing without me if you like.