Hacker News Reader

Computer science uses a completely different system of logic than mathematics or mathematics-inspired paradigms like functional.

Fortune 500 companies aren't attracted to functional. They're attracted to the TYPE systems of many functional languages. And type systems are good. But you can build e.g. a dialect of C or Pascal using those exact same type systems with no functional programming at all.

View on HN

Oh yeah? How do you explain then proliferation of FP idioms and libraries in PLs like Javascript and Python? Or success of Clojure and Elixir?

Python tries to move away from functional idioms whenever the developers realize that the idiom can be severed from the paradigm. E.g. Python's switch from filter(list, p) to [x for x in list if p]. Guido van Rossum feels that the imperative way is easier to understand and so do I.

Functional programming languages have good ideas, like type systems or lazy evaluation. But many of these ideas are NOT INHERENT to the paradigm. Perl6 incorporates almost every functional programming idea but as an imperative language.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com