3 ms·

Improved type system to me is the most valuable. Compared to OO inheritance fest, designing with types popular in functional languages can be much more natural

Improved type system to me is the most valuable. Compared to OO inheritance fest, designing with types popular in functional languages can be much more natural and easier to maintain. There are other valuable things, but IMHO the key is that, like OO programming, they are valuable sometimes, not always. Being explicit what is mutable and what can produces side effects is really good, but forcing everything to be immutable and without side effects, is not. So, while I like some things about functional programming, I'm not a fan of pure functional programming. I'd rather have a language that supports mixing multiple paradigms, even though that means giving up some things that are avaliable only in pure functional languages.

mrkeen 4y ago
> I'm not a fan of pure functional programming > Being explicit what is mutable and what can produces side effects is really good !!! That's what Haskell is !!! What language are you using which is explicit about side effects?
- zigzag312 4y ago
  > !!! That's what Haskell is !!! I haven't tried Haskell yet. Only F# (of the functional bunch). From what I heard about Haskell, I'm not sure it's what I'm looking for. It sure has functional side covered, but not much else. To me functional programming is based on logic. However, every program runs on a machine, and sometimes it's important to reason what the machine is doing. Focusing just on the logic is not enough every so often. > What language are you using which is explicit about side effects? Sadly, none that I use.