Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:04:13 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote: > On 2010-01-04 19:15:39 +0100, "Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> said: >> Aren't there people who swear by those languages for normal software >> development purposes? And even if not, there are certainly languages >> out there that are "cram everything into this paradigm, yay purity!" >> and *are* either intended for everyday use or used by people for >> everyday use. > > Yes, just like some people swear by 'everything is impure' languages, > and go lengths to achieve immutability (e.g. Java). Why are those > prefering purity called religious, and those using completely 'impure' > languages practical? > > Pure, partially pure, impure. All regimes can be religious or practical, > or both.
I think quite often the desire for practicality follows the principles of fundamentalism. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings with this OT talk, but even as an atheist I admit that some religions are quite ok. But the fundamentalists are almost always dangerous to the persons near them. It's quite common to hear things like - "Everything must be modeled in UML 2.0" - "This development process solves all problems, even the ones introduced on the language level" - "C++ and template metaprogramming provides extreme optimal performance on this problem domain" - "Large doses of REST, AJAX, XML, and Web 2.0 cloud will so totally save this crappy project" - "100% coverage in unit tests is integral part of our process. It guarantees delivery of high quality end products" - "In clean code functions should accept only one parameter" Most of the fundamentalist technologies exist - surprise, surprise - only in the imperative mainstream programmer world. That world is so full of all kinds of pseudo-science that it often makes me vomit. But it's often nicer than unemployment..
