and by the way... Erlang is not a pure functional language either... On 15 July 2010 02:13, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]<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.
