3 ms·
As advocated widely in the FP blogosphere. . . not necessarily as commonly practiced in FP programming culture, or supported by many FP languages. For example,
by bunderbunder 13y ago
As advocated widely in the FP blogosphere. . . not necessarily as commonly practiced in FP programming culture, or supported by many FP languages.
For example, I strongly prefer F# to its cousin OCaml largely because F# uses nominal typing and OCaml uses structural typing. I've also got some misgivings about being overly reliant on type inference. Both structural typing and advanced type inference are admittedly incredibly convenient. What worries me is that they also seem to be incredibly convenient as ways to obfuscate the programmer's intent w/r/t types and their semantics.
- the_af 13y agoI'd say not so much as advocated by the blogosphere (which can be annoying, as fans of almost anything often are), but by the people actually designing and using FP languages. In any case, there is certainly valid criticism of FP, but Bracha's just isn't it. My impression is that the guy -- as clever as he may be in other areas -- barely understands FP, and makes disparaging remarks about things he isn't familiar with. Read his blog; every assertion he makes is shown to be incorrect or misleading by people who do understand FP, like Tony Morris or (very politely) Philip Wadler himself.