deleted by creator
FP has been around a long time, and yes, it is outright better than OOP. Sorry. I write Haskell professionally, and never have I ever felt like something would be easier done in an OOP language. Quite the opposite.
Unrestricted mutation makes programming really hard, and OOP and mutability go hand-in-hand. If you try to make immutable objects, then you’re just doing FP with worse ergonomics.
I would humbly suggest FP may seem especially natural to you precisely because that’s what you use all day.
I mean, I have an OOP background. I found FP as a result of my dissatisfaction with OOP. In fact, I used to teach OOP languages to new students and saw the same mistakes over and over again, mistakes that are simply not possible in FP. It’s a very similar story for everyone I work with, too. We all had jobs in various OOP languages before we managed to get jobs writing Haskell.
Oh, and I’m currently teaching Haskell to someone at work who has a CS degree and has only done OOP languages (and C), and while it’s different than what he’s used to, he’s still picking it up very quickly (working towards making him a junior engineer, which I think shouldn’t take too much longer). In fact, just the other day we pair programmed on a bug ticket I have and he was not only following along with the code, he spotted issues I hadn’t seen yet. Part of it is certainly that’s he smart (which is why I’m doing this in the first place), but part of it is also that, with a bit of familiarity, FP languages are incredibly easy to read and follow. The primary difference is that FP does everything explicitly, whereas OOP encourages a lot of implicit (and hidden) behavior. When you organize code around functions, there’s necessarily more explicit arguments and explicit return values, which makes it far, far easier to follow the flow of logic of code (and test!). Recently I was trying to read through our Kotlin codebase at work (for our Android app), and it was so much harder because so much is implicit.
Please Grok tell me why was I so invested in this discussion, even if I’m not quite sure what OOP is?
It’s a tool, useful in some contexts and not useful in others.
In my opinion this is a thought terminating cliche in programming and the IT industry in general. It can be, and is, said in response to any sentiment about any thing.
Now, saying what sort of context you think something should or should not be used in, and what qualities of that thing make it desirable/undesirable in that context, could lead to fruitful discussion. But just “use the right tool for the right job” doesn’t contribute anything.
deleted by creator
I, too, have wished to be able to easily embed prolog, or at least its reduced non-turing-complete version, datalog, into a less declarative language.
Also, I think integration with answer set programming for static code analysis could be useful. This is sort of a mid-way point between test driven development and something like the type level programming in languages such as Haskell or semi-automated theorem proving in languages like Coq.
It’d be fun to talk shop with the fast code in slow languages folks. I do that for a living. I remember three ways, but I’m sure there’s more:
- “Just use a better data structure”
- “My language is a DSL for a faster language” (Polars, Numpy, etc)
- “My compiler is surprisingly good if I’m careful” (Julia, JVM, etc)
It’s almost always slow is ways that the language choice doesn’t matter even a little
“Key Search Words 101”. Make it quicker and easier to find other programmers solutions on the web.
I’ve never seen a course on functional programming. That would be interesting.
It’s what the Wizard Book (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) was written for.
My uni had one. Sadly I couldn’t fit it into my schedule because of overlaps and other requirements.
I had one. I wish I remembered more of it.
i took two courses on functional programming through coursera. it was based on scala.
At what level is SOLID good, and when insanity begins.
You have to learn this through suffering. Class would have to be project based.
You forgot the most important one:
CSCI 7999 - logging with cat.
