Re: The state of functional programming

["(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 03/08/2010 04:15, in article i381k9$dcf$1@munin.nbi.dk, "Randy Brukardt"
<randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:C8762BCC.14B84F%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On 28/07/2010 17:40, in article
>> g24nvegdi17t$.1azxwn1rwjixi$.dlg@40tude.net,
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> ...
> 
>>> This claim was made for each and every programming paradigm. It need to
>>> be
>>> substantiated, and especially for FP, which does not look very promising
>>> at
>>> all.
>> 
>> Indeed, it has been "promising", but not delivering, for a very long time.
> 
> No kidding. FP was an "old" technique when I studied it as an undergraduate
> at the University of Wisconsin. In 1978.
> 
> I think it appeals to those that are very mathematically inclined. But they
> tend to forget that there is a lot more to programming than just creating
> functions and stringing them together.

The fetishization of "concision" in FP, as though that had great intrinsic
value, rather that being (as it actually is) a barrier to comprehension, is
undoubtedly part of that: mathematics envy writ small.

> (Not to say that there isn't value to
> some of the ideas, but only in a larger framework that deals with typing,
> problem mapping, and the like.)

Exactly so. 

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk