| Turing tarpits aside, people speak very highly of C, just as they may do the same for assembly, but depending on context. Languages fill a niche, and outside of their area of utility it's easy to notice weaknesses. But arguments in favor of functions are similar to those in favor of objects. They both joust for the award of being adept at doing more with less code, in terms of mythical-man-month project scalability. I've experienced that problem with huge OOP code trees, and I still don't foresee Pure Functional programming supplying a cure for that problem. Maybe I'm just not one of the lucky ones yet. I don't know. But when I read Pure Functional code, even though it's tighter, with less boiler plate, it doesn't feel like honest improvement. It's like Coke or Pepsi, McDonalds or Burger King. OOP might yeild thousands of source files and hundreds of lines per some files, but if a Pure Functional project does the same thing with fewer lines of code in fewer files, it's still doing the same thing. So in a decade you'll probably find the same complaints, in the same places, but at least people will have different hair styles. |