(no title)
johnday | 2 years ago
As a person who teaches functional programming at degree level, this is the kind of thing that would put people off FP before they even get in the door. It is obviously less ergonomic than standard Python, and the code you end up with is no safer or more abstracted than what you started with.
That said, if the authors really do think it's a better way for programming in Python, and it works for them, then more power to 'em.
bradrn|2 years ago
What’s worse, these versions of ‘FP’ often bear very little resemblance to actual functional programming and its advantages. Rather, people seem to fall into the trap of confusing functional programming with ‘those fancy words I hear from Haskell’. Now, I may like Haskell, but its concepts are only useful because of the rest of the language — you can’t just port ‘monads’ and ‘IO’ into some random language and expect them to be usable. It looks like this library partly avoids that fate, in that it does have more than just ‘monads’… but yes, the monads are still there, and they’re just as clunky as you’d expect from Python.
</rant>
epgui|2 years ago
I mean, you can... But only with great discipline and experience. It just (probably) won't work if you're having to mentor more junior engineers with an OOP background.
bmitc|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
dlahoda|2 years ago
there are no apis for haskell or other functional langs for data i need.