7 ms·
Yeah I always giggle at this style of "dialogue with audience" that many proponents of strange programming gimmicks make: "Look, let me demonstrate that this p
by artemonster 2y ago
Yeah I always giggle at this style of "dialogue with audience" that many proponents of strange programming gimmicks make:
"Look, let me demonstrate that this piece of code is clearly VERY bad:
DoA(); DoB(); DoC();
Such horrors! What if DoB() does some invisible non-composible side effects of launching full nuclear arsenal of unites states? We clearly need some borrow checking, type checking, monads, continuations and a blessing of a pope to rewrite this horrible, horrible mess!!!!!!!!"
And then they proceed with a code example that is just a convoluted mess of "what the fuck" and finish with: "look how beautiful and safe and practical this is! industry is stoopid for not using these awesome features!"
Disclaimer: I tinker with my own PL with algebraic effects and I do think they are useful.
- pshirshov 2y agoThe problem is precisely the fact that you cannot rewrite the mess because you cannot reason about it. Your typical code has way too many aspects and not enough enforced contracts to be maintainable.
- agumonkey 2y agoI'm very FP friendly, but I think that the mainstream just pays for this defect. They'll have service layers, modules, classes with some side effects sprinkled here and there at every step. And if they don't get it well, they just delay a release to have time to deal with it. I'd rather have cleaner more general way to assemble code in a mathematical manner but I don't see it grow in mainstream software engineering.
- pshirshov 2y agoTF over bifunctors.
- agumonkey 2y agoTF ? total functions ? tensor flow ?
- artemonster 2y agotruffle fries