4 ms·
The first text sums it up: It’s hard to learn Which is refreshing to see just stated up front: FP is for smart people who have some motivation to learn so
by zzzeek 4y ago
The first text sums it up:
It’s hard to learn
Which is refreshing to see just stated up front: FP is for smart people who have some motivation to learn something hard, even when there's a whole world of alternatives that are not "hard" to learn. in this writer's case, it appears to be they own a company and they've mandated everything be written in Haskell or PureScript, which will select for employees that are willing / able to do that, etc.
as long as humans are employed to write the code directly, "hard to learn" is a non starter for being the "future".
- ch4s3 4y agoYou should give elixir a try. It’s easy to learn, the tooling is really good, and the community is super friendly. I’ve found the mix of immutability and dynamic/structural typing to be great in practice.
- rileyphone 4y agoSpecifically, FP requires expansive working memory, which is a normally distributed trait across the population. Meanwhile, in OOP one can reason from the perspective of the object and the interfaces it's interacting with, easing the burden on programmers, but there are obviously drawbacks there as well.
- ParetoOptimal 4y ago> Specifically, FP requires expansive working memory, What? FP increases local reasoning! > in OOP one can reason from the perspective of the object In FP one can reason from the perspective of the function?