Functional Programming
-
But do they do the function for which they were designed? There has to be a set procedure, and some method in your madness.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
But do they do the function for which they were designed?
Hey, give me a break. I'm only one man. :-\
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Functional programming is loved mainly by eggheads, like my boss who has a degree in mathmatics. He also loves VB, so take that as a reference however you like. Long ago, I was tortured with LITHP and Scheme by egghead professors. Twice. That's enough for the rest of my life and I can easily live with not ever having to see that stuff again. Maybe aliens from Ceti Alpha love it, but I also suspect it's the reason why Ceti Alpha Six exploded.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Quote:
degree in mathmatics. He also loves VB
That's OK. Mathmaticians, Madmaticians can actually love VB. On the other hand, proper Mathematicians can only distaste it. :-D
So you say that there are several distinct sorts of eggheads?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
Functional programming preceeded OOP. OOP is (I think) a better idea. Turbo Pascal started out as a functional language. Fortran is a fucntional lanugage. C is a functional language. Javascript is not functional, but it is a functional language. Visual Basic was a functional language. My problem with the sudden interest (by people who don't matter) in functional programming is that everyone thinks OOP should be abandoned, or that functional crap should be injected into the OOP paradigm. These people are, for lack of a better term, retards.
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
Isn't it just what we used to do back in the UNIX days? String several hundred commands together with pipes and redirects and wonder why the script was so hard to debug.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
I've thought about this same thing myself quite a bit. OOAD (OOP) is a tool. Functional Programming is a tool. Most of the time you read things about how one tool or the other solves all problems. But that is the same as thinking that a hammer solves all problems. There are concepts from both things that can make your code better. OOP / OOAD is really a way of organizing your code. It is not really more than that. But authors had to write books and those books had to meet a minimum length of pages so it exploded! Functional Programming (FP) did the same thing: exploded in publication. But again, Functional Programming contains some concepts that are novel and helpful. The one big concept from FP is the idea of "No Side Effects". Managing state while concurrent processes are running is a challenge. FP has exploded because concurrent processing has exploded in hardware. Suddenly you need a way to guarantee that you're not overwriting what another "thread" of execution is doing. So, as we consider Foundational Concepts of programming paradigms we see that the two (OOP and FP) can be very useful together. One for organizing your code. The other for managing state in a concurrent environment. Here's a very nice article I just googled that talks about Core Functional Programming Concepts[^]
-
So you say that there are several distinct sorts of eggheads?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Nah, I just don't want to be assimilated and become an egghead myself.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
for mine it's something everyone talks about as the new sliced bread, and later all but disappears into some niche, like lisp or prolog, or even forth.
Message Signature (Click to edit ->)
Hey, forth had its place :). I had gainful employment for over a year working in forth for the Anchorage AK International airport on their vehicle gate security systems. Forth did what it was originally designed for (device and instrument control) reasonably well.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
-
Hey, forth had its place :). I had gainful employment for over a year working in forth for the Anchorage AK International airport on their vehicle gate security systems. Forth did what it was originally designed for (device and instrument control) reasonably well.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
-
Was Forth a fourth generation language? Can you imagine interpreting a job requirement that says what is needed is, "Go, Forth and Javascript".
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Forogar wrote:
"Go, Forth and Javascript"
Why does my brain read that as "Go :elephant: yourself"?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Functional programming is loved mainly by eggheads, like my boss who has a degree in mathmatics. He also loves VB, so take that as a reference however you like. Long ago, I was tortured with LITHP and Scheme by egghead professors. Twice. That's enough for the rest of my life and I can easily live with not ever having to see that stuff again. Maybe aliens from Ceti Alpha love it, but I also suspect it's the reason why Ceti Alpha Six exploded.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
I'm sure Star Fleet used Functional Programming and that's why they thought Ceti Alpha Five was Six. Just thinkin outloud. :doh:
Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
I've always had the impression that functional programming was academia's pathetic attempt to wrest computing back to the 1960's era notion of high priests in attendance upon their gods, with the academics in the role of the priests. They can't earn a living doing programming themselves, so they're trying to keep the rest of us from doing so as well. :elephant: them.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Was Forth a fourth generation language? Can you imagine interpreting a job requirement that says what is needed is, "Go, Forth and Javascript".
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Actually, Forth did what it was designed for reasonably well. Unlike MUMPS, which was developed by (hold your breath) *doctors*! And the VA STILL uses it. One of the only 'languages' that allowed you write a complete program in a string variable (using user input) and execute it immediately. One nice thing was there were only 25 reserved words, each one starting with a different letter (Z was for anything that did not fit) and a program was allowed use just the first letter for the reserved word.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
F# works quite well with the rest of .NET, so it gets along well with OOAD, It's a native .Net language and interesting to play with. The first step in learning effective F# is to forget everything you know about programming unless you learned Prolog! Learned Prolog, way back when Borland had a Prolog compiler and IDE, I found F# was similar in some respects with OOP added on. CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
Here's a must-read: Object-Oriented Programming — The Trillion Dollar Disaster [^]. Clearly, an OOP-hater, but he does make many good points (also read through the comments). The take-away for me was this: "Trying out Functional Programming will make you a better developer."
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
Tried to get into "real" FP a couple times but I haven't found a single tutorial starting with something FP does better than, let's say, OOP or even procedural. On the other hand, functional concepts are creeping into languages like C# where I've been using them extensively. Heck, even variable.dosomething(parm).dosomethingelse(someotherparm) is, as a matter of fact, functional.
-
Who's yet to open the book on this? This is one such topics where the whole world starts doing something about, but I keep it safe in my todo list. Just a quick question from the dummies perspective. 1. Will functional programming make all the OOAD concepts obsolete or it can get along well with OOAD? 2. What's your take? You like it?
-
Actually, Forth did what it was designed for reasonably well. Unlike MUMPS, which was developed by (hold your breath) *doctors*! And the VA STILL uses it. One of the only 'languages' that allowed you write a complete program in a string variable (using user input) and execute it immediately. One nice thing was there were only 25 reserved words, each one starting with a different letter (Z was for anything that did not fit) and a program was allowed use just the first letter for the reserved word.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
MUMPS is an old, procedural language and I was not thrilled to have to learn it in 2001. However, the database Cache is BLAZING fast and works very well for storing Medical data. Fortunately, I no longer have to code MUMPS, but I still respect the speed.
