3 ms·
That’s a great take, but I have to mention that I disagree with a statement I may have only read into the thread: FP is not more complex just for the sake of it
by kaba0 4y ago
That’s a great take, but I have to mention that I disagree with a statement I may have only read into the thread: FP is not more complex just for the sake of it.
- galaxyLogic 4y agoI think FP is simple, uniform and very powerful. Because of that it becomes easy to express very complicated things in it, and thus write complicated programs. Like Y-Combinator. FP is simple but FP programs (often) are not. FP is a bit like Assembler. The building blocks are very simple. The resulting programs are not. In a more conventional language the building blocks are not so uniform there are many different things you build your program out of. Think COBOL. Not very abstract code at all. But easy to read. Conventional languages are more like "Domain Specific Languages" where the domain is building business etc. software. FP gives you the full (?) power of mathematics, it is fully general, not domain specific. Yet DSLs are often a better fit for the task at hand.
- yCombLinks 4y agoI think FP's niche popularity is primarily because of it's complexity. The complexity of it makes certain types of people feel smart, so they love it.
- epgui 4y agoCompletely disagree. Once you finish unlearning the patterns you're used to from other languages, there's nothing simpler than FP patterns. The hard part is not learning the thing, it's unlearning what you've already learned.
- john_the_writer 4y agoOddly I don't find FP any more complex than OOP. It's not that I'm all that smart, it's just FP and OOP just govern how you pass around data, not much else. I do tend to find FP does attract people who've really embraced jargon.