functional programming is basically OO but without polymorphism
-
-
Oh my, you haven't seen some of the PureScript code I've seen recently. I'd *kill* for the tiniest bit of verbosity.pic.twitter.com/zDDeBIwZCm
-
That appears to be gzipped content - can you show the code after you de-compress it???
-
Actually, I can't, because the famed verbosity of FP extends to the documentation. From it (attached), you can see that the `zoom` function zooms.pic.twitter.com/nT6CreTGMg
-
You are of course supposed to be able to understand it by reading the types, which merely requires understanding `Focusing` and `Star`.pic.twitter.com/zk8RutKNYh
-
I wish we'd stop calling that stuff "functional programming" - I feel like it's giving cool languages like Elixir a bad name :P
-
It's not the language (I don't think); it's community standards. The Elixir crew seems to me have made a conscious decision to make the language and ecosystem approachable, esp. for a target audience of Rails programmers.
-
The Haskell-derived static FP world (aside from Elm) is anachronistic, in that it feels very 80's/90's: when you had to *earn* your entry. (Much like the hazing medical residents go through.) And documentation was not held in, um, high esteem.
-
That's the most brutal, merciless takedown of the Haskell world I've ever seen.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Same, same, but different!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
FP is backed by math whereas OO backed by

Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is this a meme?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.