| Funny stuff here, this is a long & opinionated rant against null or undefined pointer references in favor of functional. Little to do with functional programming - aside from how it handles this same construct. > you can’t have a resistor shared by, say, both the keyboard
> and the monitor’s circuitry. But programmers do this kind of
> sharing all the time in their software. It’s called shared global state Not it isn't - this is called reuse, in modern OOA&D its either inheritance or polymorphic composition. Some more modern approaches use 'mixins' and age old cross-cuts. > Another complexity monster lurking in the software quagmire is called
> a null reference, meaning that a reference to a place in memory points
> to nothing at all I recall my earliest days, using a microtec ICE to step through my code on an
i960 on board and plugged into a DEC Alpha PCI slot, when the instruction pointer
went to a place where there wasn't any instructions - I called it 'hyperspace'
so yeah computers can actually execute bad code when I write bad code...
omg - WRITE BETTER CODE, don't be constrained by the language! >software industry has eliminated GOTO from modern higher-level languages,
>software nevertheless continues to grow in complexity and fragility. Seriously, did Scalfini quote 1970 BASIC GOTO? what about :<ref> ? > Instead, there is a construct usually called Maybe (or Option in some languages) Perhaps, maybe 8 years ago there was java.util.Optional ? > founded in 1982 with a mission to help government agencies leverage technology I think this explains some motivation >Functional programming has a steep learning curve Maybe for some, not for experienced practitioners, which I'd argue if you need to learn it
perhaps you already have some computer science in your background - then not so steep. I love functional approaches, don't get me wrong here, just don't appreciate rants so slanted and based in bias without real roots. |