3 ms·
Not only that but purist definitions help nothing at all. I don't care if FRP is well defined. If the definition of FRP doesn't make my programming experience b
by rubiquity 11y ago
Not only that but purist definitions help nothing at all. I don't care if FRP is well defined. If the definition of FRP doesn't make my programming experience better but FRP with some adaptation does, then I'll take the latter every time.
- dang 11y agoYou guys are being too dismissive. If the creator of a seminal concept wants to explain precisely what he meant by it, it behooves us to listen. This thread should be about the substance of what he says in the talk, not perceived slights to other projects which we're all still free to use.
- rubiquity 11y agoI don't take issue with Conal Elliott taking the time to explain what he meant by it. I very much appreciate that! My issue is with the poster above that puts down languages with FRP concepts because they aren't "The FRP, The Whole FRP and Nothing But The FRP." I love the FP community but if there's one thing everyone on a whole could learn it is that purist beliefs do no good for FP adoption and only help reinforce the "Functional Programmers are condescending" sentiment.