undefined | Better HN

0 pointscoldtea7y ago0 comments

>It seems to be a popular notion that adding constructs common in FP is somehow a modernization of C++ or Java. FP isn't a set of features, it's a style of programming.

And historically, nobody cared for that style of programming in its pure form (where "nobody" is in the casual sense: a few FP-lovers, but not the 95% of working programmers).

From 1960 to today it remains niche in its pure form, even the most popular language following it fully (e.g. Clojure or similar) is still a niche language.

We found out, on the other hand, that people care for mixing that style of programming with OO, imperative, reactive, and other styles.

And that's what modern JS, Java, C#, Rust, etc (even C++) give us.

And since FP is a style, it can be followed quite effectively in almost any language -- as long as it has some basic features, which, as you observed, Java has added.

0 comments

willtim7y ago

> And since FP is a style, it can be followed quite effectively in almost any language.

It's not black and white. FP is more like a spectrum, with pure functional programming more towards the opposite end, just before total functional programming. Put another way, adding lambdas to Java does not make it like Haskell. Even Scala cannot effectively be used as Haskell substitute, as some in that community eventually realised.

It remains to be see how much of FPs benefits (composition, abstraction, reasoning) can be fully realised in languages with rampant side-effects and mutation.

ilovecaching7y ago

Pedantically, you can't just redefine a term to suit your need calling something "pure" or "unpure". There are many other styles of programming that are data oriented and are a better definition for Rust and some circles of Javascript than functional, but ergonomics of composition and partial application leads to something far short of FP.

> We found out, on the other hand, that people care for mixing that style of programming with OO, imperative, reactive, and other styles.

Which is why you forgot to mention Scala, which shows us how great such a promise land can be when we try to please everyone.

> JS, Java, C#, Rust, etc (even C++) give us.

Out of the languages you mentioned, only certain circles of Javascript (React) and Rust are arguably functional as I mentioned above. Javascript has been a real exception to the rule in how its lack of real class support left a vacuum for some FP. C++, C#, Java, and the majority of Javascript are object oriented and always will be.

iainmerrick7y ago

Pedantically, you can't just redefine a term to suit your need calling something "pure" or "unpure".

No, I think they are using those terms correctly. In FP, “pure” means absolutely no side-effects. So if you add an FP-style library to an existing imperative language, that’s “impure”.

ilovecaching7y ago

That's not the context in which the word was used, but it's a fair point. I have worked professionally with Haskell, and while I am not good at it (my forte is Erlang which is what I would consider "close to functional"), other developers I have worked with were very good, and watching them code in non functional languages and listen to how they thought about solving problems is were I developed the idea that adding a few features doesn't make a language functional.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

willtim7y ago

> And since FP is a style, it can be followed quite effectively in almost any language.

It remains to be see how much of FPs benefits (composition, abstraction, reasoning) can be fully realised in languages with rampant side-effects and mutation.

ilovecaching7y ago

> We found out, on the other hand, that people care for mixing that style of programming with OO, imperative, reactive, and other styles.

Which is why you forgot to mention Scala, which shows us how great such a promise land can be when we try to please everyone.

> JS, Java, C#, Rust, etc (even C++) give us.

iainmerrick7y ago

Pedantically, you can't just redefine a term to suit your need calling something "pure" or "unpure".

No, I think they are using those terms correctly. In FP, “pure” means absolutely no side-effects. So if you add an FP-style library to an existing imperative language, that’s “impure”.

ilovecaching7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse