Am 20.08.2012 16:34, schrieb Invisible:

>> Anyway - at present it looks like function-oriented programming is
>> supposed to make everything functional and wonderful now. But what
>> problems will they discover (if they haven't done so already and you
>> just haven't heard of it yet)? I betcha there will be quite a few and
>> then some, just like with every other programming paradigm we've had so
>> far under the sky.
>
>  From what I've seen, "every other programming paradigm so far" has been
> ad hoc without much in the way of a strong, consistent theoretical basis.

Structured paradigm being ad-hoc? Don't think so. It's the result of 
people wrecking their brain about what was wrong with their previous 
coding approaches, and revolutionizing the world of software development 
with essentially just ONE strong rule.

OO paradigm being ad-hoc? Don't think so either; it only got ad-hoc the 
moment it left the realm of scientific studies and entered the realm of 
real-world hype.

Finite state paradigm? DEFINITELY has a well-analyzed, theoretical basis.

Actually, I can't think of how a programming paradigm could be ad-hoc 
without a consistent theoretical basis; I mean, that's why it is called 
a /paradigm/ rather than just coding style or some such.

Maybe you're confusing programming paradigms with programming languages 
here.

Yes, virtually ALL mainstream programming languages have something 
ad-hoc-ish about them, in how they're not strictly adhering to any 
single programming paradigm.

But wait... maybe that's why they ARE mainstream after all - because you 
can mix & match different paradigms with just one language? You know, 
solve the different parts of the software in the way that's most suited 
to each one. Get around some problems with one paradigm by offering 
alternative paradigms to base your software (or module) design on.

After all, for practical purposes it is perfectly irrelevant whether 
your language is simple and elegant at its core - all that matters is 
whether it can solve YOUR problems in a way that YOU can wrap your 
brains around after a reasonable amount of training.

Oh, wait... you're probably right: C# sucks - for YOU. Because if 
everything you're familiar with are dremel tools, the cassic cluttered 
tool box will look extremely unelegant and inefficient to you.


Speaking of wrong tools for the job, here's a mandatory viewing. No, not 
hammers this time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxG0faDT_M


> I mean, take SQL. It solves only one problem, but it solves it so damned
> well that it is basically the /only/ language of its type. And oh look,
> it's based on a theoretical model. Funny coincidence, that...

Yeah, strange though that they didn't use a functional paradigm for 
those databases...

Post a reply to this message