←back to thread

Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video]

(www.youtube.com)
296 points gyre007 | 1 comments | 17 Oct 19 10:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
lewisjoe ◴[17 Oct 19 10:57 UTC] No.21280702[source]▶
Richard Gabriel’s famous essay “Worse is better” (https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html) is an interesting perspective on why Lisp lost to C. In a way, the same arguments (simplicity vs consistency vs correctness vs completeness) can be made for why functional programming lost to OOP.

But those philosophical perspectives aside, personally I find my brain works very much like a Turing Machine, when dealing with complex problems. Apart from my code, even most of my todos are simple step-by-step instructions to achieve something. It’s easily understandable why like me, other non-math folks would prefer a Turing Machine over Lambda Calculus’ way of writing instructions.

This could be why OOP/Imperative was often preferred over FP.

replies(13): >>21280720 #>>21280760 #>>21280800 #>>21280835 #>>21280855 #>>21281061 #>>21281225 #>>21281281 #>>21281464 #>>21282667 #>>21283371 #>>21286296 #>>21288188 #
strangenessak ◴[17 Oct 19 11:19 UTC] No.21280835[source]▶
> personally I find my brain works very much like a Turing Machine

Exactly this. How baking a cake in FP looks like:

* A cake is a hot cake that has been cooled on a damp tea towel, where a hot cake is a prepared cake that has been baked in a preheated oven for 30 minutes.

* A preheated oven is an oven that has been heated to 175 degrees C.

* A prepared cake is batter that has been poured into prepared pans, where batter is mixture that has chopped walnuts stirred in. Where mixture is butter, white sugar and brown sugar that has been creamed in a large bowl until light and fluffy

Taken from here: https://probablydance.com/2016/02/27/functional-programming-...

replies(13): >>21280936 #>>21280977 #>>21281011 #>>21281055 #>>21281385 #>>21281396 #>>21281653 #>>21281843 #>>21281990 #>>21282883 #>>21283119 #>>21283649 #>>21283658 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[17 Oct 19 16:25 UTC] No.21283649[source]▶
> How baking a cake in FP looks like:

> * A cake is a hot cake that [...]

The difference between a functional programmer and an imperative programmer is an imperative programmer looks at that and says “yeah, great takedown of FP”, while a functional programmer says, “what’s with the unbounded recursion?”

But, more seriously, it's long been established that real programming benefits from use of both imperative and declarative (the latter including—but not limited to—functional) idioms, which is why mainstream imperative OO languages have for more than decade importing functional features at a mad clip, and why functional languages have historically either been impure (e.g., Lisp and ML and many of their descendants) or included embedded syntax sugar that supports expressing imperative sequences using more conventionally imperative idioms (e.g., Haskell do-notation.)

The difference is that embedding functional idioms in imperative languages often requires warnings about what you can and cannot do safely to data without causing chaos, while imperative embeddings in functional code have no such problems.