61–70 of 172 posts
Conversely, it's also one of the biggest pain-points when throwing together a quick prototype.
Then again, it's not always without hiccups.
For me the value of typed functional programming has been it's ability to encode business logic in to the type system and thus validate some of my logic at compile time.
What's specifically functional about this advantage. Can't you encode the buisness logic into types in non-functional languages as well?
I am not sure this is the only value, but it is generally true. And this is one of the great advantages of haskell. By the way, now that I know some haskell, I see this edge case sloppiness all the time and it is really annoying. For example, here is something that annoyed me just recently. You go to yahoo finance and there they will show you the revenues of a company as well as the revenue growth from past year. But…
/s slightly, maybe more snarky, but seriously, optional types are way overhyped. Null objects are far more useful than optionals. Optionals tend to leak all over the show.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can use a functional style in those languages as well. Or do you mean with Rust's borrow checker you have less mutability to worry about?
If you have a Rust enum with Color{Red,Green,Blue), if for some reason you update to Color{Red,Green,Blue,Yellow}, the rustc compiler will force you to manage the new Yellow case wherever you want to "match" a pattern on Color, so overall you have less chance to forget to manage the new case everywhere. This kind of error is not managed by a C or C++ compiler (as far as I know). But from my understanding, this is not…
They say that, and then turn around and show an example using IEEE-754 Doubles. You've got two infinities and two "not a number" values. What your type system thinks is a number isn't even necessarily a number. Maybe. Better be sure to call the "isNaN()" and "isInfinite()" methods all over the place, because those are the worst edge cases of all and your language provides no help in detecting or avoiding them. It's l…
They say that, and then turn around and show an example using IEEE-754 Doubles. You've got two infinities and two "not a number" values. What your type system thinks is a number isn't even necessarily a number. Maybe. Better be sure to call the "isNaN()" and "isInfinite()" methods all over the place, because those are the worst edge cases of all and your language provides no help in detecting or avoiding them. It's l…
Haskell is so much better, and you would learn that with about 5 minutes learning about the number types
For me the value of typed functional programming has been it's ability to encode business logic in to the type system and thus validate some of my logic at compile time.
What's specifically functional about this advantage. Can't you encode the buisness logic into types in non-functional languages as well?
I am not sure this is the only value, but it is generally true. And this is one of the great advantages of haskell. By the way, now that I know some haskell, I see this edge case sloppiness all the time and it is really annoying. For example, here is something that annoyed me just recently. You go to yahoo finance and there they will show you the revenues of a company as well as the revenue growth from past year. But…
This is not unique to functional programming languages.
Haskell was definitely a trailblazer for this, but plenty of conventional languages support this now with relative ease.
Edge case removed: for i=0 to 10 {print(a[i])} vs for x in a {print(x)} With functional programming it gets even better: a.filter {}.map{print} Pseudo code, of course. I list several “functional“ examples in Swift here: https://github.com/melling/SwiftCookBook/blob/master/functio... Functional programming is also a higher level language. map, reduce,filter, flatten, flapMap, drop, take, zip, ... Learn the concepts in…
I program mainly in C++, and I often start off writing things as: for (auto x : someContainer) { //do something with x } But inevitably, I end up needing either an iterator pointing to a particular item at the end, or I need an index to pass to some other function, and this style makes that impossible. Perhaps it's just the domain I work in, but even after years of trying to make this work, it still only works about…
map someFunction listOfValue
map someOtherFunction (zip [0..] listOfValues)
I am not sure this is the only value, but it is generally true. And this is one of the great advantages of haskell. By the way, now that I know some haskell, I see this edge case sloppiness all the time and it is really annoying. For example, here is something that annoyed me just recently. You go to yahoo finance and there they will show you the revenues of a company as well as the revenue growth from past year. But…
Ive noticed other languages with this feature, they call them optional types, you can pass in a null or a type value. /s slightly, maybe more snarky, but seriously, optional types are way overhyped. Null objects are far more useful than optionals. Optionals tend to leak all over the show.