5 ms·

Since 'functional' is not mentioned, I will assume that it is mainstream now!

• nly 13y ago
  Or maybe it just won't 'change the way you think about coding'
  • lomnakkus 13y ago
    I think that depends a lot on what you mean by "functional". If "functional" means "everything is immutable" then I can guarantee that you'll learn a lot by programming that way. If you mean "first-class functions" then I cannot -- although you still might. You could probably program in Scheme (say) as if it were C with side effects all over the place, but that wouldn't teach you anything except a different syntax. OTOH, coding something non-trivial in Haskell would teach you a lot -- even if you don't end up using/liking it. (Aside: I was somewhat disappointed by the blogger calling out the "Wolfram Language" as something special or to be admired. It's a ridiculous ad-hoc hodgepodge of a language. I stress the word language.)
  • ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
    If you don't know FP and you learn FP, then it will almost certainly change the way you think about coding.
• Dewie 13y ago
  One could say that it goes under declarative
  • marcosdumay 13y ago
    And concurrent.
• bnegreve 13y ago
  According to Wikipedia, functional programming is an example of declarative programming [1], which is mentioned in the article. This is not immediately obvious to me, here's why (from the same wikipedia article [1]): While functional languages typically do appear to specify "how", a compiler for a purely functional programming language is free to extensively rewrite the operational behavior of a function, so long as the same result is returned for the same inputs. This can be used to, for example, make a function compute its result in parallel, or to perform substantial optimizations (such as deforestation) that a compiler may not be able to safely apply to a language with side effects. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming
  • cjfont 13y ago
    Seems pretty obvious to me, since the above description could also apply to your typical declarative languages such as SQL, where you also rely on the database to do optimizations based on a description of the result you're looking for, rather than procedures for calculating it.
    • bnegreve 13y ago
      Just to clarify, it wasn't obvious to me before I read the part of the article that I have quoted. But I still think that functional programming goes beyond simply specifying "what you want". Take the problem of sorting an array for example. A declarative specification of the sorting problem would be: Given an array T, compute a permutation of T such that for all i, it's true that T[i] < T[i+1] (some languages support this type of specification e.g. [1]). Clearly here, you don't describe "how to do it". In functional programming you can't do this, you have to explain "how", implementing quicksort, for example. [1] http://www.minizinc.org/ http://www.minizinc.org/
      • Dewie 13y ago
        IMO the way that functional programming is declarative is that you can spell functions out like definitions. Like "fac(x) is ¤ 1 if x == 1 ¤ x * fac(x-1) otherwise" This is at least more declarative than describing the function with a loop. With an imperative program you kind of have to describe as a series of steps, because the order matters so much. Personally I prefer this kind of declarative programming over something like Prolog since I get a simple way of describing what/how the program is, while still feeling declarative. With Prolog I still have to learn how it works, and the way that it works is more removed from imperative and functional programming (while functional programming can be done (maybe with, but in principle) in most imperative languages as long as you restrict your use of certain features). Plus Prolog has un-declarative things like the cut operator. I don't really have much experience with declarative programming outside of these two. Something more declarative might indeed just be to give invariants and let the program find an implementation for it.
• tel 13y ago
  I'm pretty happy hoping that it's because we're beginning to realize that "functional" is not a terrifically descriptive term.
• Xophmeister 13y ago
  The second paragraph: > This is not your grandma's "functional programming will change the world!" blog post Presumably because a lot of people write blog posts about how FP will change your approach. That's true but, while I wouldn't say FP is mainstream, it's well-known in circles such as ours; whereas the topics he mentions are much less run-of-the-mill. It makes for a more interesting and original read. I notice he didn't include array-based languages, like APL and J. They were flavour of the week here a couple of weeks ago, but you still don't get much written about them and they would fit nicely in this article.
  • copx 13y ago
    I think your perception of what is "well-known" strongly depends on your age. For example neither concatenative nor declarative programming are exotic to me and I think many other older programmers. Forth (concatenative) used to be pretty big, back then software was simpler and you did not need a Qt wrapper, XML parser etc. Forth was very practical for the things it was originally used for. Like that embedded control software for a telescope where the "user interface" consisted of a few buttons, as in physical buttons, no screen, no mouse, no harddisk, no network connection to worry about. In that environment Forth made a lot of sense, on a modern computer, as a tool to write a modern GUI application it makes no sense at all if you ask me. And "declarative".. Prolog is old, back then it was usually called "logic-based programming", though. Really, Forth and Prolog, every older guy who cares about programming knows those fellas. And Prolog did not change the way I think about programming at all. I considered it breathtakingly clean and elegant (compared to C and Pascal).. for the few things it was good at (e.g. expert systems).. but utterly unsuitable as a general-purpose language / paradigm. I felt the same way about Standard ML (it was the dominant FP language before Haskell became big). "Wow, writing a simple input/output transformer (e.g. academic compiler) or doing some basic math is so clean and elegant with this! Everything else.. not so much." In contrast, Forth actually changed my thinking. According to Charles Moore, Forth's creator, proper software development with Forth meant finding just the right set of words, the right vocabulary, for the problem domain. Once that was accomplished writing down the program logic became trivial. Note that in Forth functions are called "words", are usually very short, and indeed word-like. So you end up with code like "ARM 90 DEGREES ROTATE". As I said my approach to programming was changed by the exposure to Forth. I aim to discover/define an efficient "vocabulary" for the problem domain in every language. That is not the same as designing a "domain-specific language" by the way. DSLs usually go much further, making up a syntax of their own. I do not like DSLs at all. Mostly because of the associated learning curve forced upon you by every new DSL and by the usually poor tool support. EDIT: Removed needlessly trollish part