3 ms·

> at best, a form of anti-intellectualism This is an uncharitable viewpoint. Bringing FP concepts to more devs is a good thing. I don't see how teaching better

> at best, a form of anti-intellectualism This is an uncharitable viewpoint. Bringing FP concepts to more devs is a good thing. I don't see how teaching better ways is any form of anti-intellectualism.

louthy 3y ago
Because (if the assertion is true) he eschews the terminology used by the FP community for his own wording in an attempt to pander to people who aren't (apparently) willing or able to learn the existing terminology. In my FP library [1] (targeting C# programmers) I regularly get people asking "does the library support Railway Oriented Programming?", which they (if they'd have been taught the terminology used by the FP community and not misled by Scott Wlaschin) wouldn't ask after 10 seconds of looking at the readme to see the word 'monad' all over it. It's treating OO programmers, who are curious about FP, as though they can't handle anything unless it's got "oriented programming" after it. In my mind that's a form of anti-intellectualism. I really don't buy that it's needed at all. And I feel I'm in a pretty good place to state that, language-ext has ~6K stars on GitHub and the package has been downloaded nearly 13 million times [2]. It shows that devs that use an OO-first language can and are able to learn FP terminology. I never pandered and I get many OO devs coming to the library. Yeah, sometimes they need some guidance, but I've never needed to invented new terminology. OO engineers are just as smart as FP engineers, they've just worked in different paradigms and need to learn the lingo when switching - the sooner they do it the better able they are to communicate with others in the FP community. [1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext https://github.com/louthy/language-ext [2] https://www.nuget.org/packages/LanguageExt.Core https://www.nuget.org/packages/LanguageExt.Core

louthy 3y ago

Because (if the assertion is true) he eschews the terminology used by the FP community for his own wording in an attempt to pander to people who aren't (apparently) willing or able to learn the existing terminology. In my FP library [1] (targeting C# programmers) I regularly get people asking "does the library support Railway Oriented Programming?", which they (if they'd have been taught the terminology used by the FP community and not misled by Scott Wlaschin) wouldn't ask after 10 seconds of looking at the readme to see the word 'monad' all over it. It's treating OO programmers, who are curious about FP, as though they can't handle anything unless it's got "oriented programming" after it. In my mind that's a form of anti-intellectualism. I really don't buy that it's needed at all. And I feel I'm in a pretty good place to state that, language-ext has ~6K stars on GitHub and the package has been downloaded nearly 13 million times [2]. It shows that devs that use an OO-first language can and are able to learn FP terminology. I never pandered and I get many OO devs coming to the library. Yeah, sometimes they need some guidance, but I've never needed to invented new terminology. OO engineers are just as smart as FP engineers, they've just worked in different paradigms and need to learn the lingo when switching - the sooner they do it the better able they are to communicate with others in the FP community. [1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext https://github.com/louthy/language-ext [2] https://www.nuget.org/packages/LanguageExt.Core https://www.nuget.org/packages/LanguageExt.Core