3 ms·
> he's moved on from inlining and now does pure functional programming Neither of those are true. He does more FP ”where reasonable“, and that decreases the ne
by Hendrikto 2y ago
> he's moved on from inlining and now does pure functional programming
Neither of those are true. He does more FP ”where reasonable“, and that decreases the need for inlining. He does not do pure FP, and he still inlines.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoHe literally says he’s more bullish on pure fp. Read it. And I also wrote about where he still inlines.
- Hendrikto 2y agoExactly. More bullish means he uses and advocates for functional more than before. It by no means implies having ”moved on“ from inlining.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoHe has Moved on in general and his intro comments on how he still uses inlining for special cases.
- solomonb 2y ago"pure FP" does not mean only writing in a functional style. Purity refers to referential transparency, ie., functions do not depend on or modify some global state.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoActually even further: They also don't modify/mutate any arguments. If they did, then that could raise problems with concurrency.
- Hendrikto 2y agoI know what purity is. It is a core principle of functional programing. So ”functional“ already implies purity, and ”pure functional“ implies exclusively functional (e.g. Haskell).
- solomonb 2y agoPurity is not a requirement for functional languages. See Ocaml, Erlang, Racket, Scala, Clojure, Common Lisp, etc.