On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 15:29, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > "Future programming *will* be (at least partly) functional in nature, the > needs of concurrency demand it!" > vs > "Object-Orientation works, expanding Java like this just > adds unnecessary complexity, and FP has never really left academia anyway"
Although I would add me to the second group... > I'd be interested to know the general opinion. Is functional programming > still widely considered to be "abstract nonsense"? ...I do not consider FP "abstract nonsense". It is just that I find limited fields where I would use and apply FP styles. > Chances are that I'm biased. After all, I'm very active in the scala > community and a strong believer in the principles behind functional > programming. There are many good principles. What makes them effective is where you use them. > pro-FP crowd were giving very definite concrete examples of the > benefits to be obtained, whereas the pro-OO crowd seemed to be > hard waving around nebulous principles I can understand the arguments of both groups and don't find any of them "nebulous". -- Martin Wildam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
