[xquery-talk] adding comprehension to imperative languages or vice-versa
ihe.onwuka at gmail.com
Wed Jun 24 01:28:52 PDT 2015
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Pavel Minaev <int19h at gmail.com> wrote:
> Google is ultra-conservative in their approach to coding.
Google and every bank and insurance company under the sun and god knows how
many other places but certainly the majority.
but not because it's irrelevant or that I don't agree ......see comments at
> Thing is, programmers are a pragmatic bunch. If it really does work better
> (= lets them be more productive; you don't need to be a scientist to gauge
> that), they'll get used to it, and will eventually grow fond of it, so long
> as you don't force them to go all in on it right away.
They are pragmatic in the sense that they generally won't bother learning
stuff if they don't have to and/or can't foresee being able to use it
because of the very reasons why you say you don't use XQuery/Haskell. At
some (i.e more than one) of the investment banks I've been, the standard
methodology for dealing with complexity is to crank out the debugger. When
a guy there tells you he is being pragmatic thats the sort of thing he
> A certain amount of bickering is to be expected, and there will always be
> stalwart holdouts (I mean, we still have people signing a petition to bring
> back VB6, 17 years later!), but overall the industry moves on. I'd rather
> be an optimist on account of the direction of that movement and its
> ultimate destination, than a pessimist on account of its speed, or the
> occasional detour along the way.
Pavel if you work for Microsoft you are probably surrounded by smart
colleagues who have the capacity to get it which makes you an outlier
(sorry to use such a word). I remember sitting next to an MIT graduate on a
flight talking about the adjustment you have to make when you leave an
environment where you are surrounded by smart people so that you don't keep
saying DUHHHH! at the things and thoughts you encounter in the "real world".
Functional programming enforces a design methodology that has the benign
side effect facilitating the conquering of complexity BUT ONLY IF YOU GET
Those who don't will spend an entire weekend trying and failing to figure
out how to write a fibonacci function or come up with a 37 line solution if
asked to code Pascal's triangle.
In an imperative coding environment a programmer can usually fashion
something that works (or gives the outward impression that it works). This
is not the case with functional programming which entails a totally
different thought process. So whereas FP is more productive for those who
get it, it renders those who don't incapable of producing anything at all
and those who don't make up the majority of the programming populace.
It's always better to look and sound optimistic but the biggest influence
on what progress is made in the future will be how those in the present
think and in the main that has not really changed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk