11–20 of 100 posts
((+/) % #) &. ^. 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.
I 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 don't find myself scribbling down mathematical equations when doing things like chaining promises in javascript or transforming sequences with LINQ or marking fields as const. I realise functional programming can go in very different directions to things less mundane, but the general principle of avoiding side effects has been a huge win for me when programming in any language, even C++. It's just easier to debug or write something when you can fix some constraints, ie "this method is referentially transparent".
Those are pretty low hanging fruit, but they help a lot.
I 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 hidde…
Overall I really like the article because it spells what is an essential feature of fp for me much better than I could have. It is just that it is too far from reality of most programming jobs (unless you happen to be Peter Norvig, working on the Mars rover).
Have 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.
Chinese looks complicated, unless you know Chinese.
The ultimate criteria to judge a language should be how efficiently (concisely) it expresses the concepts of the subject matter.
At most, I will concede you: Goodness_of_language = conciseness × parsing_speed_of_an_experienced_user
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 hidde…
Understood. Just to be clear: I am saying that in most scenarios nobody understands the problem; people figure it out on the go. Overall I really like the article because it spells what is an essential feature of fp for me much better than I could have. It is just that it is too far from reality of most programming jobs (unless you happen to be Peter Norvig, working on the Mars rover).
I 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.
Have 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.
I 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…
How do you mean? I don't find myself scribbling down mathematical equations when doing things like chaining promises in javascript or transforming sequences with LINQ or marking fields as const. I realise functional programming can go in very different directions to things less mundane, but the general principle of avoiding side effects has been a huge win for me when programming in any language, even C++. It's just…
But the article (and my criticism) is about the rather high hanging fruit of mathematical purity - of which "side-effect free" programming is just a side-effect (pardon the pun).
I 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.
Have 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.
A good analogy would be music notation (pentagram) I could describe a piece of music in English prose, telling you were to put your fingers and for how long. The language itself would be easier to understand, but the efficiency of information transmission would be very low. Chinese looks complicated, unless you know Chinese. The ultimate criteria to judge a language should be how efficiently (concisely) it expresses…
In the example from this article, all developers I've ever worked with would understand what the "good old C" example is doing within seconds. Most would understand the Python example. Most of them still working in the industry today would be able to figure out what the functional python code was doing without much excessive effort - it would take them longer, which is bad, but if they were working in it every day I'm willing to believe that they'd parse simple examples like that readily enough.
None of them would understand APL. J is even worse. I stared at the J code for a full minute without any comprehension of the language syntax or what was being accomplished. That code isn't readable or maintainable. It is bad code.