4 ms·
Functional languages have some good and some bad features and there's no reason to copy them all. For example, you don't need to have a Hindley-Milner type syst
by skybrian 7mo ago
Functional languages have some good and some bad features and there's no reason to copy them all. For example, you don't need to have a Hindley-Milner type system (bidirectional is better) or currying just because it's a functional language.
- troupo 7mo agoWe need more pragmatic languages. E.g. Erlang and Elixir are functional, but eschew all the things FP purists advocate for (complex type systems, purity, currying by default etc.)
- zem 7mo agoocaml has a complex type system but it's also very pragmatic in that it doesn't force you into any one paradigm, you can do whatever works best in a given situation. (scala arguably goes further in the "do whatever you want" direction but it also dials the complexity way up)
- troupo 7mo agoYes! Completely forgot about OCaml because I only spent a couple of months with it
- phplovesong 7mo agoOcaml's typesystem is rich, but not as complex as TypeScripts. It seems TS just adds more obscure features every year for little benefit.
- rapind 7mo agoIf you like Erlang, Elixir, and Elm/Haskell, then Gleam + Lustre (which is TEA) is a pretty great fit.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]