Re: functional paradigm taking over



On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Mike Stephens <rubfor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

When you consider the merits of functional languages, I believe you
should take into account not only the elegance with which you can
express what you want to do, or how amenable it is to eg parallel
processing. You should also consider whether it strikes a better balance
between such issues and accessibility. Does all your terseness and
'elegance' give you a justifiable advantage over something simpler which
could be more easily handled by a person of less capability?

A) Provide examples that functional programming leads to "terseness"
(BTW, the Laconians of old Greece preferred to say as much as possible
in as few words as possible; one man's virtue is one man's sin, it
seems).

B) Define "accessibility". Surely you aren't saying that the UI of a
program is related to which language it was written in. If you mean
issues like maintainable code, isn't a strictly logical, mathematical
structure preferable, especially if it can be analyzed (tooling is our
friend) with the help of other programs? If, indeed, the code can be
*proven* to be correct (proven in the mathematical sense)?

C) Why should someone with less capability be taken care off by going
onto their levels, instead of helping them to reach new heights (we
could call such an effort "No Coder Left Behind")? Maths isn't hard,
nor is programming. So this smells like the plot of "Harrison
Bergeron" to me.

D) Wouldn't a person with less capability be aided by code that
follows simple, logical rules?


*sigh* This'll be the ORM debate all over again, I bet.
--
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.

.