Comments by "Inconspicuous Chap" (@InconspicuousChap) on "Is Functional Programming DEAD Already?" video.

  1. Functional programming is math. OOP is anti-math, promoting poor code structure and awful data models.
    12
  2. Not just has had. There are two ways of language development: towards Lambda Calculus, Category Theory and other math, or towards ad hoc stillborn internally controversial ideas (COBOL, OOP, etc). And this concerns not just languages, but the application architecture as well.
    8
  3. I mean who are those "we" who are going to move one way or another? Hundred millions of coders only knowing how to plug a framework into their CRUD app? They would be happy to use COBOL, BASIC, Python or any other ad hoc stuff with the lowest entry threshold possible, only it's not them who decide it. E.g. Apache Spark dealing with big data is written in Scala and is most efficiently used from applications written in Scala. Whether coders want that or not they have to learn Scala in order to use it. That would be the case with any area where FP is a fit: once problems become big enough, they require more math to be solved, and FP is some of that math. That's the way the world is moved, not via mediocracy voting.
    2
  4.  AndreiGeorgescu-j9p  well, Assembler is a Turing machine adjusted to limitations of finite hardware. In some aspect it's also math. But then when we look at distinct features of high-level imperative languages, we find that they are either math (like data types, structured blocks, procedures, functions, loops, collections, etc) or stillborn ad hoc measures (like a builtin operator to draw a circle in BASIC). Any imperative language is a mix of both.
    1