4 ms·

I'm sorry but what you're saying is immediately obvious. No one in the functional programming world is laboring under the impression that state doesn't exist.

I'm sorry but what you're saying is immediately obvious. No one in the functional programming world is laboring under the impression that state doesn't exist. The real issue is whether you think it's worth separating out code that can be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion from stateful code that has to deal with mutating concerns. Functional programming is where research on improving abstractions to better allow this separation of concerns, which is pretty much the opposite of a clumsy hermetically-sealed bubble rolling around and knocking lamps over, etc.

david927 14y ago
I'm not sure what I said is obvious because you seem to have missed my point. I didn't say that "state exists". I said, "It's all state." I'm saying the notion of "separating out code that can be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion," while a successful strategy in the past, is inherently crippled by that division.
- gajomi 14y ago
  For the record, I also did not think whatever you were saying was obvious, but if your point is that understanding programs by "separating out code that can be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion" is no longer a viable strategy, I must take issue with your statement. Can you provide an example of a side effect free function that can't be reasoned about mathematically? I'm sure they exist, but they seem to me to be a kind of exotic beast. Or maybe I am just not familiar with your domain of expertise?
- efuquen 14y ago
  How it exactly is it a "crippled vision"? There are tons and tons of code that I write every day that I'm able to separate out like this. Honestly there is way more code that you can reason about in this way then not reason about in this way. This isn't some academic exercise, people right functional code that operate in this way and do a lot of useful things everyday.
MaysonL 14y ago
What makes you think that stateful code can't be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion?
- kd0amg 14y ago
  Well, there's certainly a popular conception among program analysis and formal methods researchers that side effects make analysis much more difficult.

david927 14y ago

I'm not sure what I said is obvious because you seem to have missed my point. I didn't say that "state exists". I said, "It's all state." I'm saying the notion of "separating out code that can be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion," while a successful strategy in the past, is inherently crippled by that division.

gajomi 14y ago
For the record, I also did not think whatever you were saying was obvious, but if your point is that understanding programs by "separating out code that can be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion" is no longer a viable strategy, I must take issue with your statement. Can you provide an example of a side effect free function that can't be reasoned about mathematically? I'm sure they exist, but they seem to me to be a kind of exotic beast. Or maybe I am just not familiar with your domain of expertise?
efuquen 14y ago
How it exactly is it a "crippled vision"? There are tons and tons of code that I write every day that I'm able to separate out like this. Honestly there is way more code that you can reason about in this way then not reason about in this way. This isn't some academic exercise, people right functional code that operate in this way and do a lot of useful things everyday.

MaysonL 14y ago

What makes you think that stateful code can't be reasoned about in a mathematical fashion?

kd0amg 14y ago
Well, there's certainly a popular conception among program analysis and formal methods researchers that side effects make analysis much more difficult.