-
-
Replying to @dibblego
Where can I read some arguments on why FP and OOP are not orthogonal? I believe they are.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Krever01
One exists and the other does not. http://blog.higher-order.com/blog/2008/12/04/no-such-thing/ …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Panicz Maciej Godek Retweeted Hillel is on Tweet Break
Let me recall the recent
@Hillelogram rant about existence: https://twitter.com/Hillelogram/status/982472799427203072 … Functional Programming doesn't exist either. In the end, all we have (what exists) is people using words. If they manage to communicate their ideas, they have used them successfully.Panicz Maciej Godek added,
Hillel is on Tweet Break @hillelogramOkay, so it's 2300 right now, there's another shitstorm about monads raging, and I'm drinking applesauce straight from the bottle. Let's do this shit. "Are monads pipes?" Your answer is wrong. The question is nonsense. Nonsense and stupid. It's Wittgenstein time motherfuckers!Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
By that very rant, Functional Programming does exist, and OOP definitely does not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How would you precisely define FP then?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
As it has always been defined; A thesis by which achieving referential transparency is a primary goal.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Programming languages are not referentially transparent. This is a categorical error. Yes, it has always been defined like that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.