kind of over "functional programming" as an end instead of means toward an end. it's dogmatic and restrictive and doesn't actually mean very much.
in fact, most of the concepts people associate with FP aren't why I tend toward it-- immutability and strong type systems are nice, but they don't solve every problem or even most of them, and shit falls apart at module boundaries, esp wrt networking
I like languages based around an axiomatic framework-- those tend to solve most of the problems I have almost immediately. Understand the primitives? good, you effectively understand the language.
Haskell, Mercury, Scheme, Nix, and Rust are all very good at this, and all are from completely separate paradigms. An unpopular opinion: bash is also very nice in this regard.
Scala, on the other hand is god-awful and has no foundation at all. Haskell with the right extensions can get bad as well.
notice that none of said languages have OOP objects (although its easy to emulate similar patterns in each of them).
objects and actors (OOP) are a conspiracy to cover up axiomatic truth in programming languages for the sake of "ergonomics" where no such ergonomic problem actually exists.
@afldcr i don't really have any basis for disagreeing, but i still want to fite u
i sort of think people get too hung up on whether something is "functional programming" or "oop" and it feels like people who feel like music and books must be labeled as belonging to one genre and they only like one or two genres and if they like something that was labeled as this other genre then either the label was wrong or they don't really like it.
i'm babbling fite me
afldcr
GinBaby ❣