View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 31, 2009
Does functional programming work?
An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:

http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
December 31, 2009
Re: Does functional programming work?
Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:46:58 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
> 
> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html

The related reddit comments seem to have more value than the article 
(again, the author didn't really get his monads right):

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aje5b/
functional_programming_doesnt_work_and_what_to_do/
December 31, 2009
Re: Does functional programming work?
Walter Bright:
>An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:<

The right thing to do here is to learn a functional language (and its lingo) and to try to use it to write some programs. It's time way better spent than reading articles about functional programming :-)

Bye,
bearophile
January 01, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:hhgvqk$8cj$2@digitalmars.com...
> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>
> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html

Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is completely 
in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms, 
for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse yet) 
a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm.
January 01, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:hhgvqk$8cj$2@digitalmars.com...
>> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>>
>> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
> 
> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is completely 
> in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms, 
> for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse yet) 
> a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm.

I agree, the old programming-language-as-religion problem. I first ran 
into this when I read the original Pascal book, and became enamored with 
it. I tried doing a modest project in Pascal using a pure Pascal compiler.

80% went smoothly, the other 20% spent wrestling with the nanny language 
tsk-tsking consumed nearly 100% of the time spend on the project. I just 
couldn't get things that had to be done, done, as the language would 
shut off all the avenues.

When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal. It so 
soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula 
II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.
January 01, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
Walter Bright Wrote:

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> > news:hhgvqk$8cj$2@digitalmars.com...
> >> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
> >>
> >> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
> > 
> > Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is completely 
> > in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms, 
> > for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse yet) 
> > a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm.
> 
> I agree, the old programming-language-as-religion problem. I first ran 
> into this when I read the original Pascal book, and became enamored with 
> it. I tried doing a modest project in Pascal using a pure Pascal compiler.
> 
> 80% went smoothly, the other 20% spent wrestling with the nanny language 
> tsk-tsking consumed nearly 100% of the time spend on the project. I just 
> couldn't get things that had to be done, done, as the language would 
> shut off all the avenues.
> 
> When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal. It so 
> soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula 
> II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.

You missed out on Delphi - IMO  it gives C++ a good kicking ;->
January 01, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a@a.a)'s article
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:hhgvqk$8cj$2@digitalmars.com...
> > An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
> >
> > http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is completely
> in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms,
> for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse yet)
> a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm.

I actually think Smalltalk had the better idea.  Java doesn't support any paradigm
besides OO well, and neither does Smalltalk.  The difference is that, in
Smalltalk, at least everything is an object, so you can do "pure" OO well.  Java
is "almost pure" OO, but it lack of ints, floats, etc. being objects, combined
with its lack of support for any paradigm that works well without ints, floats,
etc. being objects, makes the language feel like a massive kludge, and leads to
debacles like autoboxing to get around this.

In multiparadigm languages like D, C++ and C#, the lack of ints, floats, etc.
being objects is less of an issue because, although it's a wart in the OO system,
noone is forcing you to use the OO system for **everything**.
January 02, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
"dsimcha" <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:hhlsk7$2v03$1@digitalmars.com...
> == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a@a.a)'s article
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhgvqk$8cj$2@digitalmars.com...
>> > An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>> >
>> > http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
>> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is 
>> completely
>> in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms,
>> for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse 
>> yet)
>> a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm.
>
> I actually think Smalltalk had the better idea.  Java doesn't support any 
> paradigm
> besides OO well, and neither does Smalltalk.  The difference is that, in
> Smalltalk, at least everything is an object, so you can do "pure" OO well. 
> Java
> is "almost pure" OO, but it lack of ints, floats, etc. being objects, 
> combined
> with its lack of support for any paradigm that works well without ints, 
> floats,
> etc. being objects, makes the language feel like a massive kludge, and 
> leads to
> debacles like autoboxing to get around this.
>
> In multiparadigm languages like D, C++ and C#, the lack of ints, floats, 
> etc.
> being objects is less of an issue because, although it's a wart in the OO 
> system,
> noone is forcing you to use the OO system for **everything**.

I certainly agree about Java and multiparadign languages, but I never 
understood how, for instance, making the "if" statement an object ever did 
anything but obfuscate Smalltalk and give people warm fuzzies for being 
uber-consistent.
January 02, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "dsimcha" <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:hhlsk7$2v03$1@digitalmars.com...
> > == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a@a.a)'s article
> >> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> >> news:hhgvqk$8cj$2@digitalmars.com...
> >> > An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
> >> >
> >> > http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
> >> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is 
> >> completely
> >> in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms,
> >> for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse 
> >> yet)
> >> a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm.
> >
> > I actually think Smalltalk had the better idea.  Java doesn't support any 
> > paradigm
> > besides OO well, and neither does Smalltalk.  The difference is that, in
> > Smalltalk, at least everything is an object, so you can do "pure" OO well. 
> > Java
> > is "almost pure" OO, but it lack of ints, floats, etc. being objects, 
> > combined
> > with its lack of support for any paradigm that works well without ints, 
> > floats,
> > etc. being objects, makes the language feel like a massive kludge, and 
> > leads to
> > debacles like autoboxing to get around this.
> >
> > In multiparadigm languages like D, C++ and C#, the lack of ints, floats, 
> > etc.
> > being objects is less of an issue because, although it's a wart in the OO 
> > system,
> > noone is forcing you to use the OO system for **everything**.
> 
> I certainly agree about Java and multiparadign languages, but I never 
> understood how, for instance, making the "if" statement an object ever did 
> anything but obfuscate Smalltalk and give people warm fuzzies for being 
> uber-consistent.
> 
> 

Have you ever actually used Smalltalk?? I have used it and it's the easiest language to use by far, having conditionals as methods of Boolean is much better, easier to read and more flexiable.  

The beauty of smalltalk is that you can easily add new "language" features in the library with little effort and they do not look foreign to the language.
in fact, almost all of smalltalk is implemented in the library and it only has 5 actual keywords.
January 02, 2010
Re: Does functional programming work?
yigal chripun wrote:
> Have you ever actually used Smalltalk?? I have used it and it's the
> easiest language to use by far, having conditionals as methods of
> Boolean is much better, easier to read and more flexiable.
> 
> The beauty of smalltalk is that you can easily add new "language"
> features in the library with little effort and they do not look
> foreign to the language. in fact, almost all of smalltalk is
> implemented in the library and it only has 5 actual keywords.


What's your opinion, then, about why Smalltalk has failed to catch on?
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home