I am familiar with both of these, as well as the article, thanks.
Here is a quote from the article:
Fundamentally an application can be written to have at it’s core, a single, stateless pure function, behold!
And my point is that, yes, you can do that, but you shouldn't.
Your point is not particularly convincing.
Why not?
Re:Application-as-a-Function Thinking
by hombre_fatal on Sunday October 16, 2022 @02:13PM
(#33225813)
But your bulleted list is an incorrect entailment of what "a function at its core" means wrt OP, Elm, or Bernhardt's talk, so it seems more like you're reacting to your own reductio of what that quote could entail.
You haven't explained what is wrong with using a pure function to model state changes in an application. To do so, I think you'd also have to contend with the fact that a solution like Elm works quite well in practice.
TFA basically describes Elm’s architecture https://guide.elm-lang.org/architecture/ which is one of the state of the art abstractions for building applications where you model state changes in a central function.
Or watch Gary Bernhardt's "Functional core, imperative shell" talk (https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts/catalog/funct...) that compelled TFA.