spreadsheets - You got to be kidding me ... pixel/vertex shaders - Sounds mathematical but does it have to be done functional? ant and maven build scripts - Errr ... They are more declarative than functional. SQL - Ok about this one. XSLT - I worked on this 4 years ago. This thing should DIE!!! copy-on-write filesystems - Not even a clue what this is Javascript - Dont like it and never meet anyone that like it. map-reduce - Ok, but this is pretty new.
I am working in a major bank now, My previous job was also with a major financial institute. Not sure what was your experience but there was none FP in my previous company, and very little (my project is the only one that I am aware of) in my current company. Unless, of course, if by FP you mean SQL and Excel, then yes most people are using those. Thanks On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:13 PM, 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.
