1. FP did not "lose", it just became quietly mainstream without you even noticing. The following "failures" all contain a strong element of FP:
spreadsheets pixel/vertex shaders ant and maven build scripts SQL XSLT copy-on-write filesystems Javascript map-reduce Did Excel lose, or computer games, or XML transforms, or ZFS, or webapps, or Google? Not to mention a fair amount of stuff going on in banks and hedge funds that nobody ever really talks about :) 2. My stated opinion, as per the opening post in this thread, is that I am both pro-FP and pro-OO. I'd like to imagine that you replied based on the actual content there, and not simply the subject line. I believe in the potential of using both paradigms together. Seriously, if that wasn't the case then my name wouldn't be on this page: http://www.scala-lang.org/node/7009 (which it is) On 15 July 2010 00:55, Oscar Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
