News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by antisemiotic on Thursday October 17, 2019 @07:39AM (#21280936)
And then you actually try to write it in a functional language, and end up with something like:

cake = map (cool . bake 30 175) . splitIntoPans $ mix [ butter, sugar, walnuts ]

Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by p33p on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:00AM (#21281073)
I think partial application and pipe operators make this so very intuitive though:

[butter, sugar, walnuts] |> mix() |> splitIntoPans(pans = 3) |> bake(time = 30, temp = 175) |> cool(time = 5)

Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by strangenessak on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:41AM (#21281397)
We can improve the syntax further

    [butter, sugar, walnuts]
    mix()
    splitIntoPans(pans = 3)
    bake(time = 30, temp = 175)
    cool(time = 5)
Hmm, wait a second.....
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by pkilgore on Thursday October 17, 2019 @09:22AM (#21281736)

    [butter, sugar, walnuts]
    ^^^
     Somewhere wanted type CakeIngredients but missing record field "Flour"

If imperative style programming came with type inference on the level of the Ocaml compiler sign me up. For now, though, I can spare a few cycles in exchange for correct programs.
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by antisemiotic on Thursday October 17, 2019 @09:31AM (#21281828)
Careful, somewhere along that line you might even come to a conclusion that Haskell is world's most advanced imperative language, with the reprogrammable semicolons and whatnot.
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by twic on Thursday October 17, 2019 @10:12AM (#21282242)
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by meijer on Thursday October 17, 2019 @10:50AM (#21282639)
But this doesn't handle the state. It is not working imperativ code.