Skip to content

Comment on Functional programming's smugness problem parent

Comments

Well, OOP had some help in the form of C++. It was easy to sneak in because it didn't strictly require people who were used to C to change their habits. Folks could, in effect, switch compilers first and then learn the language at their leisure. Of course, you could also make the argument (and I would) that C++ wasn't really an object-oriented language so much as a structured language with classes thrown in.

Most of the popular functional languages, on the other hand, require folks to do a whole lot of mental gearshifting before they can be productive in the new language. That's a natural impediment to adoption.

I suspect, though, that functional programming has finally found its C++, in the form of more recent versions of C#. Like with C++, it doesn't require users to immediately switch programming styles to be able to get the job done. Also like C++, though, you really can't use the language to its full capacity without getting very comfortable with a lot of functional programming concepts. Pretty much all of the neat new stuff in the .NET 4 class libraries, for example, is built around higher-order programming. Most of it will also be useless (or at least severely crippled) for someone who can't get past relying on mutable state.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.