Re:What's worked in Computer Science: 1999 vs. 2015 (2015)
by macintux on Friday March 15, 2024 @03:07PM
(#39719514)
Hybrid languages are sub-optimal in a lot of ways. One of the joys of functional programming are the guarantees that imperative languages can't offer (primarily immutability).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:What's worked in Computer Science: 1999 vs. 2015 (2015)
by Terr_ on Friday March 15, 2024 @03:47PM
(#39719907)
The moment you have any database or filesystem or remote-service, the hybridization starts anyway.
Sure, technically a single computer's local RAM is being managed with strict guidelines, but that correlates less and less to overall application state and behavior these days.
Re:What's worked in Computer Science: 1999 vs. 2015 (2015)
by marcosdumay on Friday March 15, 2024 @04:11PM
(#39720183)
The promise of FRP was to solve this problem. It makes "state change" a first class object, and organizes your code around it.
The problem is that nobody made an usable FRP system yet. It's not obvious why it's so hard, and everything feels like it should be easy. But everybody just keep failing.
Re:What's worked in Computer Science: 1999 vs. 2015 (2015)
by macintux on Friday March 15, 2024 @10:36PM
(#39722845)
True, but you can isolate side effects.
Knowing that a small collection of functions is not referentially transparent is better than having to deal with any part of the program potentially changing your state.