3 ms·

People say functional programming is hard, but it feels just like a knee-jerk reaction. In practice, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. For example, IMVU g

by tikhonj 12y ago

People say functional programming is hard, but it feels just like a knee-jerk reaction. In practice, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. For example, IMVU gave an experience report at BayHac about switching from PHP to Haskell; they found that onboarding a new employee (without significant Haskell experience) took about as much time as it did for their particular flavor of PHP (conventions, frameworks... etc)[1]. They found Haskell became much easier to teach given a strong set of opinions on code style and library choice. Jane Street has had a similar experience with OCaml. In fact, they even teach all of their new traders—largely non-programmers—OCaml in a few months! [2] In fact, one of the main reasons they stuck with OCaml was because it made it easier for their domain experts to review and read code. The same happens for hiring: it's not nearly as difficult as people seem to think. Sure, the supply is relatively low in absolute terms—but demand is even lower, proportionally! If anything, it's probably easier to hire quality developers in a language like OCaml because it serves both as a filter (applicants really self-select) as well as an additional perk to people interested in the language. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl3expkos4Q#t=483 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl3expkos4Q#t=483 [2]: https://www.janestreet.com/ocaml-bootcamp/ https://www.janestreet.com/ocaml-bootcamp/

gcv 12y ago
I've always been curious about Jane Street. It seems like a too-good-to-be-true story. Picking an obscure but powerful alternative to C++ and Java for a highly-competent core team makes sense, and has been done by several banks. But hacking OCaml does not fit the personality profile of (m)any traders I've met — most will happily whip up a spreadsheet to help their work, but writing extensive software and learning Hindley-Milner type systems falls outside their ordinary needs or interests.
- kazagistar 12y ago
  You don't have to write extensive software or have a deep interest in type systems to use ML languages. You just have to know enough of the syntax to understand the API and write some functions to work with provided DSLs.
- LeonidasXIV 12y ago
  > learning Hindley-Milner type systems Well, HM is about type inference and they can just assume it works correctly. And I don't think they are expected to write extensive, complex programs in the language but more put together pieces from their "vast trove of proprietary libraries", which are most likely designed just for the fact of faciliating the use of the language for users who are not (primarily) software developers.
  - gcv 12y ago
    I'm not sure you can realistically wire together pieces of functionality written in a statically typed language without understanding its underlying type system. Sure, by the time it compiles without errors the code probably needs less debugging than in a dynamically-typed language, but getting to that point can be difficult and frustrating. (Speaking from experience as a TA.)

by tikhonj 12y ago

gcv 12y ago

I've always been curious about Jane Street. It seems like a too-good-to-be-true story. Picking an obscure but powerful alternative to C++ and Java for a highly-competent core team makes sense, and has been done by several banks. But hacking OCaml does not fit the personality profile of (m)any traders I've met — most will happily whip up a spreadsheet to help their work, but writing extensive software and learning Hindley-Milner type systems falls outside their ordinary needs or interests.

kazagistar 12y ago
You don't have to write extensive software or have a deep interest in type systems to use ML languages. You just have to know enough of the syntax to understand the API and write some functions to work with provided DSLs.
LeonidasXIV 12y ago
> learning Hindley-Milner type systems Well, HM is about type inference and they can just assume it works correctly. And I don't think they are expected to write extensive, complex programs in the language but more put together pieces from their "vast trove of proprietary libraries", which are most likely designed just for the fact of faciliating the use of the language for users who are not (primarily) software developers.
- gcv 12y ago
  I'm not sure you can realistically wire together pieces of functionality written in a statically typed language without understanding its underlying type system. Sure, by the time it compiles without errors the code probably needs less debugging than in a dynamically-typed language, but getting to that point can be difficult and frustrating. (Speaking from experience as a TA.)