theCodeStig

Yes! I had this book in the early 2000’s. it was originally published by Microsoft Press.

Yeps. I love this.

You’re on point, there is no difference.

The author could have at the least, used Cristoforo Colombo, instead of the anglicized version.

Singapore is (primarily) an English speaking country.

Have you tried to see the pure FP viewpoint, rather than argue?

A lot of the difficulty in learning FP is in unlearning imperative programming. I hypothesise that for someone whom has never programmed before, FP and declarative paradigms are easier to reason about.

That’s a strong assertion. Can you elaborate, to back it up?

I don’t see how ROMs for a 20 year old console would be a problem. The console and games are no longer sold. The producers have made all of the profit that they would make, on the original sale. They don’t see any profit on sales of used consoles and games.

LISP is a family of languages. Some LISPs are functional (Scheme languages), some are not (Common Lisp).

In a LISP, the parenthesis are structural syntax. Where other languages use curly braces, whitespace, square-brackets, and usually a combination thereof; LISP simply uses parenthesis.

A few nits: I would not put Scala in the ML category (I'm not sure about Rust). Haskell is, in-fact an ML. Racket is a Scheme. I would consider the actor model to be more OO than FP.

FP can be distilled to purity/referential transparency. Category theory is a nice complement to FP, but it's absolutely not required.

That's not functional programming at fault; that's a case of hostility toward users.

It's both. You can defer side effects, and avoid state in most other languages; but it's not enforced, or encouraged; and might even be tedious. The difference with functional languages, is that they encourage or enforce deference of side effects, and avoidance of state.

Dyson

There seems to be an assumption in this thread, that only American English speakers mispronounce non-English names. I've found the British and Australians, to be equally terrible at this.

Unfortunately these DIY systems are usually made with PVC. I think it’s worthwhile, to purchase a ready made system that uses food grade plastic, as I have done.

Notability

FP can be used for the same solution, for which OOP would be used. In many (if not all) cases, the FP solution would be less complex.

The only caveat is in I/O mechanisms. An IO monad is one way to safely manage IO, but it is not the only way.

Iterators with a capital I are not functional.

Functions like ‘map’, and ‘fold’, and ‘zip’ are; but Iterator is not the term to describe such function.

Those are “meat hipsters”, just following one trend to the next. I would guess a lot of the same population followed a raw diet at some point in their past, possibly even Jain.

I’m fully vegetarian, and mostly vegan. Although I don’t have a taste for meat, I’m not opposed to eating lab-grown meat in any way, so long as no animals are harmed in the process.

Good point. Here’s a different angle. I don’t see it, that the Haskell community needs another web framework. However, the niche that Rails fills, could benefit from purity and type safety; which Haskell provides.

I’ll play devils advocate. The industry is saturated. The world doesn’t need more programmers, the world needs better programmers.

The misconception of a singular branch is the fault of git forges.

I was hoping for drop bears.

Haoyi, is that you?

Unfortunately Scala suffers a similar story on the JVM with Java libraries.

If this works with F#, It looks incredibly interesting.

P.S. I love the name.