Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deconstructing Functional Programming [video]

infoq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 116 posts

Re: Deconstructing Functional Programming [video]

#3

Post by agentultra »

This is a brilliant talk. It's getting far too easy to annoy the FP cult(ure).

As an aside, Scala is not unique in marrying a FP approach with an OO system. CL has had CLOS, IMO one of the better implementations of "OO" outside of Smalltalk, for much longer than Scala.

Definitely watch this!

Re: Deconstructing Functional Programming [video]

#4

Post by taeric »

First, thanks for all involved in getting this posted!

I'm somewhat curious on why the industry has such an aversion to simulating things in our mind. Especially when this seems to be one of the arguments employed against monads in this speech. That it basically couches something known in an odd name that is not known. Isn't this just stating that it is bad because it confuses the simulator that is the reader?

That said, the live coding aspect is something that I am just now learning from lisp with emacs. Being able to evaluate a function inline is rather nice. It is somewhat sad, as I still wish I could get a better vote in for literate programming. (Betraying my appeal to the human factor moreso than the mechanical one.)

Re: Deconstructing Functional Programming [video]

#6

Post by jstratr »

Interesting talk! Bracha has some good arguments against features that I generally enjoy in programming languages, like Damas–Hindley–Milner type inference and pattern matching.

Regarding Haskell: The points he makes against obtuse names based in category theory are valid, but then again, Haskell has its roots in research programming languages. Math-based terminology makes more sense for an academic audience.

Re: Deconstructing Functional Programming [video]

#7

Post by asdasf »

jstratr wrote: post #6

Interesting talk! Bracha has some good arguments against features that I generally enjoy in programming languages, like Damas–Hindley–Milner type inference and pattern matching. Regarding Haskell: The points he makes against obtuse names based in category theory are valid, but then again, Haskell has its roots in research programming languages. Math-based terminology makes more sense for an academic audience.

>The points he makes against obtuse names based in category theory are valid

No, they aren't. When you have a class of "things" that doesn't have a name most people are familiar with, you are left with two options. Either choose a name people are familiar with, but which is wrong and misleading. Or choose the correct name and people have to learn a name. Are we seriously so pathetic as an industry that learning 3 new technical terms is a problem?

Re: Deconstructing Functional Programming [video]

#8

Post by asdasf »

agentultra wrote: post #3

This is a brilliant talk. It's getting far too easy to annoy the FP cult(ure). As an aside, Scala is not unique in marrying a FP approach with an OO system. CL has had CLOS, IMO one of the better implementations of "OO" outside of Smalltalk, for much longer than Scala. Definitely watch this!

CLOS and scala have very little in common, both in the functional side and the OO side. Ocaml and F# are better examples. Can I ask what you think made this a brilliant talk? It seemed like the standard "I don't want to have to learn so I will pretend there's no reason to learn" nonsense we hear all the time.
Post reply on HN