4 ms·
> You are correct however, if we programmers could only do our jobs competently we'd have no need of such things. That's the thing though - comparing "good FP"
by sweezyjeezy 4y ago
> You are correct however, if we programmers could only do our jobs competently we'd have no need of such things.
That's the thing though - comparing "good FP" vs "good OO" is a false equivalence, in reality you will need to deal with other people's code, or yourself when you didn't know better. Bad OO << bad FP, that's basically all I need to make my mind up!
- xupybd 4y agoTo quote someone smarter than me. "100% pure functions are the way to go where possible" You don't need to throw out OO to introduce some functional ideas that help improve the correctness and make it easier to maintain. Bad FP to me often means the unreadable mess of complexity that some choose to introduce with their functional code. Personally I try to avoid anything that I'd consider "fancy". But using pure functions is functional programming IMO.
- sweezyjeezy 4y agoThat's true, if someone's fallen in love with recursion or currying, that's often going to end in tears.
- schwartzworld 4y agoCurrying is amazing though.
- sweezyjeezy 4y agoAmazing to write, often insane to read / debug