Nobody that you read maybe:) There are references to functional programming in the earlier posts (one by me, of course).
Nobody that was modded up enough to be seen by an AC with default filtering in place.:-)
Functional programming is sweet. Makes programs cleaner (when its used well of course), it shows your intent better to the code's reader, it takes fewer lines of code to do a lot of "loop heavy" operations, makes a tons of OO design patterns easier to implement, AND it is easier to optimize for multi core, weee!
Though while theoritical functional programming may be side effect free, the real world stuff isn't. Many languages that have functional paradigms still have the standard features in them that allows a function to reach for stuff out of scope (let say, a Singleton), so that mess things up. But it is still FAR easier to handle than regular stuff.
Agreed. Functional programming is awesome! Even though some of a program must obviously have side-effects (I/O anyone??), you can still divide the concerns such that a large majority of the program (or your standard library) does not have side effects.
I noticed elsewhere that someone mentioned SQL and databases and their applicability to this discussion. SQL is probably the most common functional language, but there's really no need to use a database unless it's actually needed (as they seemed to suggest). Also, LINQ for C# works on in-memory collections as well as databases (and is arguably a cleaner syntax than SQL).
I, for one, am quite interested to see functional programming come into the mainstream and eagerly await the day that a search for 'Haskell' on dice.com returns many more than 12 results (and this will quite possibly be precipitated by getting 'thousands [or even 10s] of cores'!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned pure functional programming. It is 'side-effect free' so you can take a block of code and drop it on any core. This is the future.
Also, look at Google's Map/Reduce design. A great number of problems can be re-expressed in terms of map and reduce.
Relying on the 'argumentum ad ignorantium' are we? Or, more specifically in this case, a presumed lack of confidence on the part of your opponent regarding his understanding.
This typically works better when you are orating in a [preferably] British accent. But, in this case, it's just words on a screen. I suppose you didn't think i would call your bluff? Come back to the debate my friend, I assure you my understandings of Kant and Godel are entirely accurate. You wouldn't walk away from a debate you don't think you can win would you?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody that you read maybe :) There are references to functional programming in the earlier posts (one by me, of course).
Nobody that was modded up enough to be seen by an AC with default filtering in place. :-)
Functional programming is sweet. Makes programs cleaner (when its used well of course), it shows your intent better to the code's reader, it takes fewer lines of code to do a lot of "loop heavy" operations, makes a tons of OO design patterns easier to implement, AND it is easier to optimize for multi core, weee!
Though while theoritical functional programming may be side effect free, the real world stuff isn't. Many languages that have functional paradigms still have the standard features in them that allows a function to reach for stuff out of scope (let say, a Singleton), so that mess things up. But it is still FAR easier to handle than regular stuff.
Agreed. Functional programming is awesome! Even though some of a program must obviously have side-effects (I/O anyone??), you can still divide the concerns such that a large majority of the program (or your standard library) does not have side effects. I noticed elsewhere that someone mentioned SQL and databases and their applicability to this discussion. SQL is probably the most common functional language, but there's really no need to use a database unless it's actually needed (as they seemed to suggest). Also, LINQ for C# works on in-memory collections as well as databases (and is arguably a cleaner syntax than SQL). I, for one, am quite interested to see functional programming come into the mainstream and eagerly await the day that a search for 'Haskell' on dice.com returns many more than 12 results (and this will quite possibly be precipitated by getting 'thousands [or even 10s] of cores'!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned pure functional programming. It is 'side-effect free' so you can take a block of code and drop it on any core. This is the future.
Also, look at Google's Map/Reduce design. A great number of problems can be re-expressed in terms of map and reduce.
Relying on the 'argumentum ad ignorantium' are we? Or, more specifically in this case, a presumed lack of confidence on the part of your opponent regarding his understanding. This typically works better when you are orating in a [preferably] British accent. But, in this case, it's just words on a screen. I suppose you didn't think i would call your bluff? Come back to the debate my friend, I assure you my understandings of Kant and Godel are entirely accurate. You wouldn't walk away from a debate you don't think you can win would you?