3 ms·
>My sense (guess) is that you, like most people, learned programming from the outset using the procedural/imperative style. >FP is, at its core, far FAR simple
by Aerroon 3y ago
>My sense (guess) is that you, like most people, learned programming from the outset using the procedural/imperative style.
>FP is, at its core, far FAR simpler than procedural/imperative/whatever-you-want-to-call-it programming. It requires high school math, if that.
These two factors do not go together in my opinion. Most people who learn imperative programming have studied mathenatics for a dozen years beforehand, but somehow learning imperative programming for a year "ruins" their ability to understand FP permanently? This sounds like an excuse to explain why people have poor performance when they learn FP.
From my experience people do have poor preformance with FP. Back in uni we had a class for FP. If there's anything the majority of students took away from that class, it's that they're never going to touch Haskell again. Because the average performance was that poor.
- consilient 3y ago> but somehow learning imperative programming for a year "ruins" their ability to understand FP permanently? No, it ruins their willingness to learn FP. Novices know they're learning a new subject and set their expectations appropriately. Experienced imperative programmers think they're learning another minor variation on C and get frustrated when it turns out many of their existing mental models don't transfer.
- still_grokking 3y agoPlease don't confuse Haskell with FP! Haskell is an abnormality. Even in FP land. There is likely no other language where you need to "understand monads" to understand `Hello World!`. Such "crazy stuff" has nothing to do with FP!
- tome 3y agomain = putStrLn "Hello World!" Where did I have to "understand monads"?
- dllthomas 3y agoYou didn't, of course, but playing devil's advocate and abusing terminology in the usual way, you have to understand a monad a little bit to know what to make of the type signature. In practice I expect the comment you replied to is hyperbole and/or confused.