Ok, what is the point of this?
1. FP LOST!!! ... it has been around for more than 50 years, it has its
chances but people vote with their feet!! When I was doing my CS Bachelor
(1994), FP
wont be taught until senior years (Scheme was taught in the AI class).
Even assembly code was taught before that.
Nowadays the most majority code are still done OO (Java/.Net) and will
stay that way for a while.
2. Why does OO have to fight with FP?? They are just different way of
solving problems. Why cannot they coexist? Scala is a good example.
If you look at Scala, it is actually more OO than Java since everything
in Scala are Objects, even functions.
On the other hand, I DONT think Scala is a pure FPL, since not
everything is immutable (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_paradigms),
thus its threading model is not as good as Erlang's due to that issue.
Most people tend to focus on Scala's FP side because that is new to them.
its OO side - well most people already know OO (go learn Erlang if you want
pure FP).
Lets just hope that we can get the best of both worlds, and lets not to be
too Academic about it, after all, that is probably why FP lost.:)
So what is next, RDBMS vs ODBMS? :)
Thanks
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]>wrote:
> In our recent, erm, "discussion" one oft-mentioned issue came up:
>
> Is Java's downfall foreshadowed by the lack of FP constructs, and will
> closures be "too little, too late" when they finally arrive?
>
> and, as so often happens in discussions of this nature, respondents divided
> into the pro-FP and pro-OO camps
> (plus one who seemed to think that *any* abstraction was good, regardless
> of paradigm, and that computers would be programming themselves in the near
> future anyhow...)
>
> A *few* posts later, the typical war-lines were drawn:
>
> "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"
>
>
> It's very common for developers deeply embedded in the world of objects to
> deride FP as being "complex", "academic", and "overly abstract", but what
> really caught my attention this time was that the 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 - this is
> definitely a role reversal when compared to the usual stereotypes.
>
> 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, though I'd like to think I can see the benefits (and flaws) in
> both paradigms.
>
> I'd be interested to know the general opinion. Is functional programming
> still widely considered to be "abstract nonsense"?
>
>
> --
> Kevin Wright
>
> mail/google talk: [email protected]
> wave: [email protected]
> skype: kev.lee.wright
> twitter: @thecoda
>
> --
> 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]<javaposse%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
--
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.
