4 ms·

Huh? Are you suggesting that people use functional programming languages such as Haskell or ML because they are fashionable? Where on earth are you living suc

by gdp 17y ago

Huh? Are you suggesting that people use functional programming languages such as Haskell or ML because they are fashionable? Where on earth are you living such that they are fashionable? I wanna live there.

KirinDave 17y ago
Please reread what I said. The fashion statement is using a non-functional language and adopting some functional mores.
- gdp 17y ago
  I see. I'm still not sure how you justify your (revised) statement. What's fashionable about it? You don't think people do stuff because they think it makes them better programmers, rather than because of some perceived fashion trend? Similarly, you don't think the tendency for most non-functional languages to adopt features and techniques from functional languages is because those ideas are inherently valuable? Sometimes a good idea is a good idea, and I think functional programming is an idea whose time has finally come. Maybe what you're labeling "fashion" is actually just a natural progression towards acceptance and adoption that started several decades ago. Personally I think the trend towards selectively adopting functional features (if there is one!) could only be positive. If more programmers become comfortable with the concepts underpinning FP, then making the jump to using plain ol' FP (rather than <insert your language here> with anonymous first-class functions bolted on etc) will likely be much easier. Maybe it'll lead to wide-spread adoption!
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    I did not revise my statement. You simply read it incorrectly. To directly answer your question, I think that the merit of functional programming techniques is in their application as a whole. Sniping high-profile individual techniques does not bring a proportional benefit. It is simply cargo culting. It is "fashionable" to mention "functional" programming and to butcher the concept of referential transparency when writing code in Java, C++ and C# these days. All it does is create a new style of obfuscation for these languages.

by gdp 17y ago

KirinDave 17y ago

Please reread what I said. The fashion statement is using a non-functional language and adopting some functional mores.

gdp 17y ago
I see. I'm still not sure how you justify your (revised) statement. What's fashionable about it? You don't think people do stuff because they think it makes them better programmers, rather than because of some perceived fashion trend? Similarly, you don't think the tendency for most non-functional languages to adopt features and techniques from functional languages is because those ideas are inherently valuable? Sometimes a good idea is a good idea, and I think functional programming is an idea whose time has finally come. Maybe what you're labeling "fashion" is actually just a natural progression towards acceptance and adoption that started several decades ago. Personally I think the trend towards selectively adopting functional features (if there is one!) could only be positive. If more programmers become comfortable with the concepts underpinning FP, then making the jump to using plain ol' FP (rather than <insert your language here> with anonymous first-class functions bolted on etc) will likely be much easier. Maybe it'll lead to wide-spread adoption!
- KirinDave 17y ago
  I did not revise my statement. You simply read it incorrectly. To directly answer your question, I think that the merit of functional programming techniques is in their application as a whole. Sniping high-profile individual techniques does not bring a proportional benefit. It is simply cargo culting. It is "fashionable" to mention "functional" programming and to butcher the concept of referential transparency when writing code in Java, C++ and C# these days. All it does is create a new style of obfuscation for these languages.