3 ms·
Sure if it was easy for people to think functionally then functional programming is without a doubt more elegant. But elegance doesn't negate the fact that the
by Edmond 13y ago
Sure if it was easy for people to think functionally then functional programming is without a doubt more elegant. But elegance doesn't negate the fact that the reasoning model demanded by functional programming isn't friendly to the way we think. The elegance argument is something proponents always bring up, but it misses the point.
While dynamic procedural languages have their problems, I think they work for the most part, hence their success Vis-à-vis functional languages. As far as the issue of scale, that's why modular constructs as added to manage large code bases.
- freyrs3 13y agoI don't know how you're coming to this result, but it /is/ easy for people to think functionally. You can teach intro-CS classes in both functional and imperative styles and generally they pick up both styles at the same rate. I've seen it year after year of teaching these courses. The myth that functional programming doesn't match human thought is just flat out FUD, there's no evidence to support it. The adoption of programming languages is more influenced by economic factors than informed by solid engineering.
- Edmond 13y agoI wont argue about your experience in the class room but both styles of programming have been around for about the same length of time and yet their adoption rates speak volume. We can debate this ad infinitum and probably wont come to an agreement.
- freyrs3 13y agoThe adoption rates do say a lot of things, but not about the claims you're making about human reasoning.