May 2nd... http://twitter.com/thecoda/status/13241379512
:) On 15 July 2010 01:30, twitter.com/nfma <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<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.
