On 15 July 2010 14:05, Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > "FP has never really left academia anyway" > > I hear this claim all the time. Erlang is of course the obvious > counter-example, it was developed by and for the telecommunications > industry. And F# and Clojure are more recently examples of functional > languages that were born outside of academia. And languages such as > Python and Ruby have been using functional constructs for nearly two > decades now, and you cannot tell me you think they are only used in > academia. > > If anything academia is dominated by object oriented programming. > Students are taught that OO is the only way to develop, and so once > they graduate that is all they know. They have a tendency to view any > other paradigm as primitive and beneath them and refuse to learn it. >
This really does not resonate to me... at my uni, the first language you learn is scheme and one of the last languages is Java, though I got C++ and Smaltalk80 on a OO programming course earlier. I also learned Prolog, LISP, C, Assembly, etc... that are not inherently/at all OO languages... I think most universities (at least the good ones) try to give a broad view and focus on concepts rather than on the tools. > > On Jul 14, 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.
