I always wonder why some people go to a new place and then want to make it like the place they came from.
[deleted]
FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
91–100 of 185 posts
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#92I’m sorry, but this is just awful. func TraverseTuple10[F1 ~func(A1) IOEither[E, T1], F2 ~func(A2) IOEither[E, T2], F3 ~func(A3) IOEither[E, T3], F4 ~func(A4) IOEither[E, T4], F5 ~func(A5) IOEither[E, T5], F6 ~func(A6) IOEither[E, T6], F7 ~func(A7) IOEither[E, T7], F8 ~func(A8) IOEither[E, T8], F9 ~func(A9) IOEither[E, T9], F10 ~func(A10) IOEither[E, T10], E, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, T1, T2, T3, T4, T…
IBM as fuck.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, however the README does link to this: https://github.com/IBM/fp-go/tree/main/samples
data := F.Pipe3( T.MakeTuple2("https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/1", "https://catfact.ninja/fact"), T.Map2(H.MakeGetRequest, H.MakeGetRequest), R.TraverseTuple2( readSinglePost, readSingleCatFact, ), R.ChainFirstIOK(IO.Logf[T.Tuple2[PostItem, CatFact]]("Log Result: %v")), ) This looks like a pain to modify if you're not intimately familiar with the fp-go library and are just trying to insert a debug statemen…
This example hurt my brain a little.
People should stop pushing these things already, no one cares but them.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#94Adding generics to go was a mistake
Indeed, this was the exact stuff that I loved not having to deal with in Go: architecture astronauts pushing their code golf on everyone else.
I’m quite sad to see this project as it demonstrates that Go is starting to lose many of the characteristics that attracted me to it in the first place.
(For some context, I know quite a bit about functional programming and formal type theory, having studied the latter in grad school. It is intrinsically very interesting but I believe it is a net negative in most software engineering contexts.)
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#95Was just scrolling through the docs. Does anyone feel comfortable with all these generic type annotations? I'm not expert programmer but this looks overkill to me.
Why, what's wrong with func TraverseParTuple10[F1 ~func(A1) ReaderIOEither[T1], F2 ~func(A2) ReaderIOEither[T2], F3 ~func(A3) ReaderIOEither[T3], F4 ~func(A4) ReaderIOEither[T4], F5 ~func(A5) ReaderIOEither[T5], F6 ~func(A6) ReaderIOEither[T6], F7 ~func(A7) ReaderIOEither[T7], F8 ~func(A8) ReaderIOEither[T8], F9 ~func(A9) ReaderIOEither[T9], F10 ~func(A10) ReaderIOEither[T10], A1, T1, A2, T2, A3, T3, A4, T4, A5, T5,…
Blasphemy.
Kill it with fire but make sure to pour some Holy water first.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#96Adding generics to go was a mistake
Indeed, this was the exact stuff that I loved not having to deal with in Go: architecture astronauts pushing their code golf on everyone else. I’m quite sad to see this project as it demonstrates that Go is starting to lose many of the characteristics that attracted me to it in the first place. (For some context, I know quite a bit about functional programming and formal type theory, having studied the latter in grad…
"It is intrinsically very interesting but I believe it is a net negative in most software engineering contexts.)"
Exactly, the place for FP was and always will be academia.
Real programs require real, readable logic.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#97I'm glad to see this idea getting some traction again. I haven't used Go much in the last few years, but I started playing around with a similar idea back in 2016 when I was working on a small compiler for a configuration management tool, and later put together a small stand-alone proof of concept library( https://github.com/rebeccaskinner/gofpher ) as part of a talk ( https://speakerdeck.com/rebeccaskinner/monadic-e…
Would be a lot more interesting with some usage examples or tests.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#98This is a tour de force, and it accomplishes the goal of enabling FP using the Go syntax and toolchain. But code written using this library is no longer Go: most Go programmers can't grok it, and it's awkward to call normal Go libraries because there's no way to know if that function you're calling is pure. If your goal is to "make it easy and fun to write maintainable and testable code in golang" by making pure func…
I believe these things are mostly productivity sinks, which is why I am such a Go fan and also so sad to see these types of projects in Go.
This is exactly what I was afraid of when generics were introduced, and now I get to spend time arguing with people who read some blog post about how functional programming and type theory will save the world, instead of actually being productive. Ugh.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#99Love expression-oriented pseudo-FP (F#, Scala, Rust), but I think this recent trend of trying to shoehorn Haskell-lite features into mainstream imperative languages is, to put it gently, extremely awkward. That said, I actually do remember my first exposure to Golang being a blog post about using monads to avoid incessantly typing `if err != nil`. Very much like that original author, my personal values in software en…
I've always had a hard time breaking into FP paradigms. The basic tutorials feel a bit like math proofs and it's hard to connect the ideas into things I'm actually doing.
As it turned out, I accidentally started learning some functional-lite paradigms in Python. I learned that I actually do like some of these paradigms, and think through them already, I just couldn't connect my internal understanding with the language of FP.
I started learning Rust recently, as it's an exciting systems language with some hype. There, you see even more functional bits which is just a pleasure to use. I'm not in an area where purely functional would make sense but having the quality of life that certain paradigms brings is nice.
I'm still very much a novice in FP techniques, but the ability to try aspects as I go is helpful in learning.
Re: FP-Go: Functional programming library for Golang
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've ended up using at least a half dozen generic helpers in every application I've written since they were added. They've made my coding easier, more concise, and help with testing. Adding generics to Go was well-founded.
Can you share some examples? I personally haven't found any excuses to use generics yet, so I'm curious where other people are finding them useful
Here is an example in the standard library: https://pkg.go.dev/slices