3 ms·
Sure, subatomic particles are the foundation for reality, but as humans we don't walk around thinking about the world in terms of each object's subatomic struct
by swannodette 17y ago
Sure, subatomic particles are the foundation for reality, but as humans we don't walk around thinking about the world in terms of each object's subatomic structure - it's simply too low a level for most activities. We operate at the level of thought, images, words, concepts - abstractions. Why should we be spending a lot time of programming at the level of the computer's fundamental structure or even be using idioms from that level? This is not to say we as researchers and practitioners should not comprehend this level and occasionally operate at it- but most of the time we should be expressing our ideas in the most expressive way possible.
Also I'd like point out it's not like functional programming is a fad. It's roots go back almost 50+ years alongside structured programming. These paradigms have coexisted and influenced each other significantly over this time and as evidenced by the current of crop of interesting programming languages, there's lot more evolving to look forward to.
- bdfh42 17y agoYou are correct in everything you say but we have to be careful of each and every layer we build on top of the "fundamental particles" of programming to minimise the risk of accidental complexity. I firmly believe that all techniques that help us reduce errors are valid but that they should be selectively applied according to the context of any given task. I know that such an approach does little to help the newcomer to our craft but silver bullets will always lead newcomers in the wrong direction - at the end of the day what we write is executed by a silicon chip and the more aware we are of it's capabilities and limitations the better.