The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
MUMPS is an old, procedural language and I was not thrilled to have to learn it in 2001. However, the database Cache is BLAZING fast and works very well for storing Medical data. Fortunately, I no longer have to code MUMPS, but I still respect the speed.
I've heard the "write-only" complaint about Perl and APL, too ...
I've seen horrible Perl; but also have seen huge Perl apps that were a cakewalk to understand.
APL worked very well at giving you the whole algorithm in a concise picture.
Ask Morgan-Stanley how "K works, for people who are under serious coding pressure.
I'd say it's a matter of developer community and praxis, without which every language can be a bomb.
1. As matter of fact, OOAD concepts and functional programming are both dated. Lately there's some interest in the features of functional programming, that's true.
2. I like it but I don't fully understand it. That is often I am not able to see how my job would be easier using functional programming.
Functional programming is loved mainly by eggheads, like my boss who has a degree in mathmatics. He also loves VB, so take that as a reference however you like.
Long ago, I was tortured with LITHP and Scheme by egghead professors. Twice. That's enough for the rest of my life and I can easily live with not ever having to see that stuff again. Maybe aliens from Ceti Alpha love it, but I also suspect it's the reason why Ceti Alpha Six exploded.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
Functional programming preceeded OOP. OOP is (I think) a better idea.
Turbo Pascal started out as a functional language.
Fortran is a fucntional lanugage.
C is a functional language.
Visual Basic was a functional language.
My problem with the sudden interest (by people who don't matter) in functional programming is that everyone thinks OOP should be abandoned, or that functional crap should be injected into the OOP paradigm. These people are, for lack of a better term, retards.
In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm—a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs—that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids changing-state and mutable data. It is a declarative programming paradigm in that programming is done with expressions or declarations instead of statements. Functional code is idempotent: a function's return value depends only on its arguments, so calling a function with the same value for an argument always produces the same result. This is in contrast to imperative programming where, in addition to a function's arguments, global program state can affect a function's resulting value. Eliminating side effects, that is, changes in state that do not depend on the function inputs, can make understanding a program easier, which is one of the key motivations for the development of functional programming.
Fortran and C are not functional programming languages. Having functions does not make a language functional.
And one of the reasons for renewed interest in functional languages is they have certain advantages when trying to parallelize programs.
Sounds like "static methods" are a step in the "functional" direction then. And enumerators.
The Master said, 'Am I indeed possessed of knowledge? I am not knowing. But if a mean person, who appears quite empty-like, ask anything of me, I set it forth from one end to the other, and exhaust it.'
― Confucian Analects
From what you wrote, it sounds like the use of deterministic and non-deterministic functions. How does functional programming differ from traditional OOP where the developer knows they are writing a deterministic or non-deterministic function within a class?
I've thought about this same thing myself quite a bit.
OOAD (OOP) is a tool.
Functional Programming is a tool.
Most of the time you read things about how one tool or the other solves all problems.
But that is the same as thinking that a hammer solves all problems.
There are concepts from both things that can make your code better.
OOP / OOAD is really a way of organizing your code. It is not really more than that. But authors had to write books and those books had to meet a minimum length of pages so it exploded!
Functional Programming (FP) did the same thing: exploded in publication.
But again, Functional Programming contains some concepts that are novel and helpful.
The one big concept from FP is the idea of "No Side Effects".
Managing state while concurrent processes are running is a challenge.
FP has exploded because concurrent processing has exploded in hardware.
Suddenly you need a way to guarantee that you're not overwriting what another "thread" of execution is doing.
So, as we consider Foundational Concepts of programming paradigms we see that the two (OOP and FP) can be very useful together. One for organizing your code. The other for managing state in a concurrent environment.