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.
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.
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
reading about logical systems and really starting to get Gödel's theorem
1) every logical paradox seems to involve self reference
2) I really appreciate being able to write possibly false statements that don't mean anything in constructivist systems because I don't have a witness. Law of the excluded middle is no bueno from what I can tell
3) paraconsistent logic is neat! did you know the dual of constructivist logic is a paraconsistent logic? It's called Brazilian logic and it's neat.
GinBaby ❣
