3 ms·

I think you are describing extreme cases for the FP. Can you please provide one example how would you abstract away problems solved via Map, Reduce, Filter, Li

by tegeek 12y ago

I think you are describing extreme cases for the FP. Can you please provide one example how would you abstract away problems solved via Map, Reduce, Filter, List Comprehension, Pattern Matching, Partial Application and Currying using any OO language (say Java)? Filtering, transforming data takes a lot of code in any data driven app. You start trimming the code from the day 1 in any FP enabled language without even thinking about the pattern. Research in Programming Languages giving us new tools to reason about our software development and FP is one of those nice tools.

pron 12y ago
Again, I was referring to that type of FP the author was talking about, i.e. the one practiced in Haskell/scalaz. Everything you mention is useful. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, the mere fact that something is useful does not always mean that it's worth its price. So whenever you give me a "solution" you first have to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem and the price I have to pay elsewhere. Simple map and reduce operations certainly have a non-negligible utility (more readable code, better reuse), and they do come at a low cost. But elaborate type systems and restriction of side effects cost a hefty price, so they need to justify their use a lot more than just show that they're useful.
- Touche 12y ago
  You really should have said this from the start. Instead of: > I used to like functional programming. you should have said > I used to like Haskell. It's caused a lot of confusion in this thread. Also, I think it's unfair to compare Haskell vs. Every Other Programming Paradigm. Because by doing so you are only picking and choosing parts of other paradigms which work as well as the Haskell equivalent and not judging the whole of Haskell vs. Language X.

3 ms·

I think you are describing extreme cases for the FP. Can you please provide one example how would you abstract away problems solved via Map, Reduce, Filter, Li

by tegeek 12y ago

pron 12y ago
Again, I was referring to that type of FP the author was talking about, i.e. the one practiced in Haskell/scalaz. Everything you mention is useful. But just to play devil's advocate for a second, the mere fact that something is useful does not always mean that it's worth its price. So whenever you give me a "solution" you first have to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem and the price I have to pay elsewhere. Simple map and reduce operations certainly have a non-negligible utility (more readable code, better reuse), and they do come at a low cost. But elaborate type systems and restriction of side effects cost a hefty price, so they need to justify their use a lot more than just show that they're useful.
- Touche 12y ago
  You really should have said this from the start. Instead of: > I used to like functional programming. you should have said > I used to like Haskell. It's caused a lot of confusion in this thread. Also, I think it's unfair to compare Haskell vs. Every Other Programming Paradigm. Because by doing so you are only picking and choosing parts of other paradigms which work as well as the Haskell equivalent and not judging the whole of Haskell vs. Language X.