Gabriel Sechan wrote: > You also cut the number of qualified auditors by a factor of 10. Functional > languages didn't catch on for a good reason- they're hard to understand and > hard to write in. They don't work the way most people think. I'd put 2:1
For the time being the number of auditors would be greatly reduced, yes. But I am wondering if the reason functional languages did not catch on was not that they are hard to understand or write in but instead because the computing power available at the time did not lend itself to using functional languages so we all got our start using imperative languages and now think only imperatively. > that doing it would make things worse- you'd be introducing a ton of bugs > from people who don't write good functional code, and likely taking 3-4 > times the amount of time to write it. This includes myself, and I'm not a > stupid person- functional programming is just counter-intuitive to me, and > procedural makes sense. I'm sure english makes more sense to you and spanish is just a bunch of jibberish also. Procedural programming was your first and you will always think that way. Even if you learned to speak functional it would be with a thick accent and never come easily to you like procedural does. > I still have nightmares aboout making the return types of the if and else > statements of ML match. I don't know much about ML but I've been looking at lisp, scheme, and haskell lately and liking what I see. I can't really code in either yet as I have only read the theory and some basic tutorials but I'm looking forward to giving them a real try. -- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
