News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Total Functional Programming (2004) [pdf] by epgui on Thursday March 07, 2024 @09:00AM (#39629139)
That is absolutely and totally true, but 99.9999% of engineers are probably working on things like web apps or other high-level code.

The argument for FP was never that it was perfectly well-suited to every application-- merely that it was better-suited for your "typical" engineering tasks of writing business logic. FP, proof languages, and logic programming, are also all uniquely well-suited in situations that require correctness and formal verification (safety, aerospace, testing, etc).

To make a very broad, sweeping statement: if your project has a `node_modules` or a `venv`, then FP is the medicine you didn't know you needed. If you're writing low-level metal code / assembly, then you should already know you're not the target audience.

Re:Total Functional Programming (2004) [pdf] by dartos on Thursday March 07, 2024 @03:43PM (#39634366)
The software world is larger and more diverse than you think.

Maybe on HN 99% of people work on web.

In reality probably like 70%

Re:Total Functional Programming (2004) [pdf] by epgui on Thursday March 07, 2024 @07:16PM (#39636242)
Even if that's true, does it change anything about the point I made?
Re:Total Functional Programming (2004) [pdf] by dartos on Thursday March 07, 2024 @08:10PM (#39636621)
No, but I’m also not sure what your point has to do with what I was saying