4 ms·
Every functional language I have tried has given me a compelling reason not to use it. In most cases, it was a stupid reason that had nothing to do with it bein
by jimrandomh 18y ago
Every functional language I have tried has given me a compelling reason not to use it. In most cases, it was a stupid reason that had nothing to do with it being functional. Some of them force you to sort your functions by call dependence (caller must be after callee). Most of them are woefully lacking in library and toolchain support - no bindings for essential APIs, no graphical debugger, no code completion. In the end, it proved easier to add functional features to languages which already had these things and had proved themselves free of fatal flaws, than to fix the flaws and add support to the functional languages people were promoting.
- gaius 18y agoIndeed. To be basically useful in a commercial setting a language must have rock-solid bindings to a) a major GUI toolkit on all its supported platforms and b) the big 3 databases. This is why I have high hopes for F# - an industrial-grade OCaml with full access to the vast .NET libraries and integration into one of the best IDEs around.