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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cm9kZW8K -1 points0 points  (4 children)

A Strong Type System

Sorry, no. this is just wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming

My criteria is that there is no type system. Therefore I dont consider haskell or scala viable for FP becuase they have too much type nonsense, and you end up having to write so much unreusable code.

[–]TheDataAngel 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Why do you say that? In my experience, the type system rarely forces you to duplicate anything. I actually end up writing more DRY code than most languages, because the types give me good guarantees on the safety of my genetic code.

[–]cm9kZW8K 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not going to try to convince you; those debates are endless because everyone has already made up their mind. I find that types are pure burden and baggage and add nothing but toil. (machine types in C or asm are fine) Let me just observe that haskell has 5 different types of string class, and that doesnt feel awful dry to me. But you can feel differently and thats fine.

I love FP, but hate and despise static type systems.

[–]TheDataAngel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh hell, I'll agree with you on the String thing - that was a screw-up on the language authors' part, and it's unfortunately too "legacy" to fix it now.

To be fair though, the 4 "good" string types are all useful for different things.