A different view on Functional Programming
matiasmorant.wordpress.com
A different view on Functional Programming
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#2Minor typo
> reduce(lambda b, b: ab, 1, positives)
Should be
> reduce(lambda a, b: ab, 1, positives)
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#3Minor typo > reduce(lambda b, b: a b, 1, positives) Should be > reduce(lambda a, b: a b, 1, positives)
Thanks, fixing it :)
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#4> attempts to reduce programs to equations
Logic programming is close to this. In functional programming, left side of equation always consists of dependent variable and nothing more. Logic programming allows to put any variables on both sides of equation.
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#5I get the idea (doing fp for a living for 15 years) but the article lives in a bubble populated by mathematically pure unicorns: This strength/feature of fp can only weigh in where we have the mathematical formulas, arriving at those is the hard part in most programming jobs - most of the time those who "define" the product/spec cannot even do it in plain English (because they have to make up things as they go, no criticism, just acknowledgement of bizdev-reality).
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#6((+/) % #) &. ^.
is the same as
(+/ % #) &. ^.
because adverb (/ in this case) binds with + before three verbs +/ , % and # are grouped into the fork. So some parentheses aren't necessary. It would be cleaner to show three expressions which share the common part as similar in letters as well.
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#7Have you considered that many people aren't particularly fond of deciphering complicated math equations?
For them, your argument is in favor of avoiding functional languages. Too math-like! A step-by-step procedure might be simpler to understand.
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#8I am something like an intermediate programmer and this is useful.
I want to understand how FP replaces OOP in a similarly concise example. I have a sense that it involves a reconsideration of why OOP is useful, and solving that issue with a widely new approach, but I am not there yet myself. I’d love to see something like these Python comparisons but involving the demolition of an OOP implementation.
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#9I get the idea (doing fp for a living for 15 years) but the article lives in a bubble populated by mathematically pure unicorns: This strength/feature of fp can only weigh in where we have the mathematical formulas, arriving at those is the hard part in most programming jobs - most of the time those who "define" the product/spec cannot even do it in plain English (because they have to make up things as they go, no cr…
I always envy people who can work on something that can be expressed with math or some other kind of consistent logic. Most company problems are inherently messy and you just end up with a litany of convoluted code.
Re: A different view on Functional Programming
#10I get the idea (doing fp for a living for 15 years) but the article lives in a bubble populated by mathematically pure unicorns: This strength/feature of fp can only weigh in where we have the mathematical formulas, arriving at those is the hard part in most programming jobs - most of the time those who "define" the product/spec cannot even do it in plain English (because they have to make up things as they go, no cr…
Hi! I appreciate your honesty.
Of course arriving at the Mathematical formula is the hard part, that's what it means to actually solve the problem.
I consider the fact that you can't code your solution in this style until you have done so as a feature: you can't write code if you haven't really understood and solved the problem. (As opposed to imperative style which let's you implement a half done solution with hidden bugs, not covering all corner cases)