4 ms·
most computational individuals would be strongly opposed to FP There's ample evidence for and against. The most famous counterpoint I know of is Dijkstra, whos
by ky3 12y ago
most computational individuals would be strongly opposed to FP
There's ample evidence for and against. The most famous counterpoint I know of is Dijkstra, whose Ph.D. was in theoretical physics. What does a theoretical physicist do? They calculate, of course. On reams and reams of paper.
Dijkstra famously warned against the brain damage that comes with learning BASIC. I understand it to mean that one could be so caught up with the details of shuffling bits and bytes that a bigger picture is no longer conceivable to the poor fellow.
Because the poor fellow has fallen into the trap of premature optimization. For loop all the things, higher abstractions be damned.
- mcguire 12y agoA couple of random bits of trivia: * Dijkstra's Ph.D. was in theoretical physics, but I don't believe he ever actually did much. Instead, he was working on computing systems. Famously, when he was getting married, the Amsterdam official recording the marriage wouldn't accept "programmer" as a job, so his marriage certificate says "theoretical physicist." * Dijkstra was not a wildly big fan of functional programming. Admittedly, he was less a fan of other things, and I've had this sneaking suspicion that his was simply another allergic reaction to recursion, but still...his guarded command notation was essentially imperative.