4 ms·
I feel I should point out that that ‘functional’ quote is (a) only applicable to pure, strongly-typed functional languages, and (b) pretty much irrelevant unles
by bradrn 4y ago
I feel I should point out that that ‘functional’ quote is (a) only applicable to pure, strongly-typed functional languages, and (b) pretty much irrelevant unless you happen to be interested in category theory.
- epwr 4y agoYou might want to look a bit more closely before you write functional programming off like this. Eg. Clojure is a modern functional language that is used for a lot of things & happens to be dynamic.
- bradrn 4y agoSince when was I writing off FP? My main language for personal projects is Haskell. I was just pointing out that the category theory stuff isn’t really relevant at all.
- fulafel 4y agoYep, the FP scene is split into the pragmatic and the academic sides. I think it is not precisely delineated along the static vs dynamic sides: In addition to Elixir/Erlang, and Clojure we have eg F# and Elm from the static side in the pragmatic team.
- bradrn 4y agoI think the distinction you’re trying to make is that of ‘impure’ vs ‘pure’; ‘pragmatic’ vs ‘academic’ strikes me as a rather loaded choice of terminology, especially since languages like Haskell are rather widely used practically.
- tasuki 4y agoI don't think that's the distinction fulafel tried to make. Elm is very much pure, yet it's on the pragmatic side: it forgoes certain powerful abstractions (higher kinded polymorphism, type classes), which enables the compiler to give very helpful error messages, and makes the language easier to learn.
- bradrn 4y ago> Elm is very much pure Huh… you’re quite right. I always thought it was impure. In that case I retract my previous comment (pity I can’t edit it any more!).