3 ms·
> I just don't read code as I would a mathematical proof. That's fine, although I'd say that FP is probably just not for you. It's very much a style of program
by phillipcarter 3y ago
> I just don't read code as I would a mathematical proof.
That's fine, although I'd say that FP is probably just not for you. It's very much a style of programming that lends itself more towards "programming is akin to proofs" than "programming is about manipulating things on a von neumann architecture". Neither is an incorrect view of the world, but they do represent different ways of reasoning about things and it's better to use a language more suited towards one way of thinking.
- trealira 3y agoTo be honest, when I read e.g. Haskell code, I don't get the sense of a mathematical proof at all, not compared to proof assistants like Isabelle/HOL, Coq, or Lean. It looks more like abstract, high-level wizardry, casting that transform the output of one function into the correct type so that it can become input into another; and yet it's very abstract typing, nothing like proof-assistant tactics (though I admit I'm not all that experienced with proof assistants either). I think immutability is more about making it easier to reason about the code than mathematical proofs specifically.
- freilanzer 3y ago> That's fine, although I'd say that FP is probably just not for you. That's just gatekeeping.
- phillipcarter 3y agoIt’s not, but you’re free to believe that.