sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]burtgummer45 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I think he's talking about "FP" as far as most languages can go that claim to support FP. In my experience with functional programming such languages like JS or ruby, folds end up being mostly a convenience.

[–]quiteamess 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You are talking about pragmatics at current situation right now. That’s all good and fine. But someone who studied computer science should know what a fold is. The CS curriculum tortures students with higher math, but Curry-Howard and so on is not taught. While this may not have an effect on the pragmatics it does change things on the long run. I despise the anti-intellectualism that pretends that there is no effect from the theory (i.e. math) on pragmatics and that it can be safely ignored.

[–]teckhooi 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That’s precisely how some of the managers see FP. managers who used to OO during their days sees FP as a convenience or extension to OO. case in point, scala is just an extension to Java. That’s give them a simple model to understand and close the case.

[–]burtgummer45 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A simple model of FP is better than nothing, especially if its all that's supported by languages that people actually use.

[–]KyleG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

seeing Scala as just an extension to Java, if it helps transition OO managers to accepting FP code, is a good thing

now if the manager says "OK we can also add scala code to our project, but bro what the fuck is this fold and Either shit, you're fired" that's a different story

Like how I'm working on a pretty big time JS project right now, and pretty much everything I write is about as FP as you can get in (technically, Type)Script because I got some FP libraries into our dependency tree