[rectang]

I actually have a decent practical understanding of sum types as they are used in Rust at least (including the tagged union implementation of enum). It's good enough to do useful work.

Every time that functional programming patterns get discussed, though, there is a mad rush by functional programmers to impress upon everyone just how complicated they are.

It is the same impulse that keeps the mathematical entries in Wikipedia accurate but utterly worthless for most people.

[Quekid5]

Absolutely, a practical understanding is enough. It also suffices for monads, monad transformers, etc.

> Every time that functional programming patterns get discussed, though, there is a mad rush by functional programmers to impress upon everyone just how complicated they are.

I... haven't observed this behavior personally. FWIW, I don't think that saying (for example)

> Hey, we can actually define what "|" and "(_,_)" means in a mathematical way

detracts in any way from a practical understanding. Can you elaborate on why you think it's detrimental? (I understand that it can come off as a little bit smug, but beyond that... meh?)

[rectang]

Asserting that an article is "sprinkled with claims that go a bit too far" calls into question what the reader may have learned. It does not build upon the article, like a popularizer would, but first tears it down.

Then, to restore the reader's sense of mastery over the material, it's proposed that they grok a significantly more esoteric perspective.

[Quekid5]

I'm just trying to understand... is your beef here with the particular choice of verbiage?

(FWIW, I think it's absolutely right to call into question what the reader may have learned if an article is misleading. We can argue about wording, etc., but accuracy is important, I feel. Now, Lies-to-Children[0] certainly have their place, but they must be fundamentally accurate even if simplified.)

[0] I think I first heard of this concept in the Science of Discworld books...?