

Is Functional Programming the new Python?  - edw519
http://paulspontifications.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-functional-programming-new-python.html

======
marcharper
The reason for the low variance in python solution times is a design feature:
"there should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it"
(Guido).

Of course there is often more than one way to do anything in python. For
instance, Guido prefers list comprehensions to using map even though both drop
down to the C-layer for improved performance whereas iterating/looping
generally does not. Most python programmers, however, seem to stay away from
the functional programming aspects of python, if their code is any indication.

Although python has the basics of functional programming: map, reduce, lazy
evaluation (for some iterators/generators), its support for lambda functions
is clumsy and many advanced features (such as monads) are not present in the
standard libraries at all. Python lets you experiment with functional
programming but that's about it.

~~~
hs
what about java's OOP only? why wouldn't the design lower variance?

my take is that java's high variability is caused by its verbosity: more codes
= more 'moving parts' = more things that can go wrong

to disprove my theory, give me a verbose language with low variability in
solution times

------
wanorris
It seems like FP is an ideal candidate for the Python Paradox. If, at this
point, you draw in programmers who are genuinely fluent in a functional
language, you know they're almost certainly smart, and you know they're almost
certainly dedicated to their craft.

All you really need to figure out then is whether they'll crank out shipping
code for you, instead of producing a really fascinating paper on the calculus
of arrows or something.

------
babul
They have thier uses but will not be readily adopted as Python as it is too
hard for most people to change thier thinking to functional programming.

~~~
mlinsey
That's even better for the argument being made, which is that Python used to
be a good weeder language (since the only people who knew it tended to be real
hackers) but it no longer is, because more people have learned it just to do
their jobs. If functional languages are really too difficult to ever get
widespread adoption (which I doubt), that makes it even more likely that
functional languages are and will continue to be good languages to use if you
want to attract only smart people.

Edit: your other comments in this thread also don't seem to be addressing the
article. The article is running with the idea that more _obscure_ languages
are better - because widespread adoption means that poorer programmers will
learn it in order to get jobs.

~~~
bridgetroll
<http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html>

~~~
mlinsey
Right. That's the exact same essay that the linked article was talking
about...is there something you wanted to say about it?

~~~
bridgetroll
I made sloppy link insert as a comment in haste, no real purpose or reason. I
must have come into the discussion through user comment history from another
article and thought the topic was on that other article. In essence I was
replying just to the commenter and not the overall posted article.

------
babul
No. These languages have been around for a long time (I used ML in uni 10
years ago) and have never taken off in a big way.

------
babul
The test of time is the best test in my book, and hence they fail in this case
as over time Python still seems to be the favoured.

