Re:Grain: A strongly-typed functional programming language f...
by pyrale on Sunday April 25, 2021 @01:47PM
(#26934744)
> but the question is why even have that opportunity
I have provided a valuable use case above, and creating a structure allowing convenient use cases while preventing inconvenient ones would be extremely costly.
> But it's not great at modeling or encouraging boundaries.
What features are you missing specifically? You cited the need to "keep units bounded", but most FP langs provide the ability to contain implementation details within modules, by not exporting them.
> Imagine doing FP where all your types cease to exist for part of your codebase, but also you need to interact with the code where the types are. Even more, imagine if those two modules may fail independently (i.e. so you lose one of them).
I've had to deal with antiquated DBs containing unreliable data using flaky drivers, and while working with legacy can be painful sometimes, the FP paradigm caused no specific trouble.
I have provided a valuable use case above, and creating a structure allowing convenient use cases while preventing inconvenient ones would be extremely costly.
> But it's not great at modeling or encouraging boundaries.
What features are you missing specifically? You cited the need to "keep units bounded", but most FP langs provide the ability to contain implementation details within modules, by not exporting them.
> Imagine doing FP where all your types cease to exist for part of your codebase, but also you need to interact with the code where the types are. Even more, imagine if those two modules may fail independently (i.e. so you lose one of them).
I've had to deal with antiquated DBs containing unreliable data using flaky drivers, and while working with legacy can be painful sometimes, the FP paradigm caused no specific trouble.