|
|
|
|
|
|
by wslh
804 days ago
|
|
|
I don't agree about the cognitive load, people are different and the idea that there is a "single developer mind" is completely wrong. For example, YMMV, if you look at LINQ in .NET is a natural query language over different paradigms. I don't think it adds a cognitive load. And, we should also think about the way that computer science and/or software engineering is studied. If there were a better teaching approach about multiparadigm thinking there would be less cognitive load. My argument is that when you work professionally you don't spend the same cognitive requirements that studying at university because even unconsciously you assume that you know most of the material. What I agree is that you would not find many people who are profficient in Haskell/OCaml/Lisp at the same time of imperative languages. You can know both but it is rare to work interchangeably in both. Again, I think that part of this is how we learn computer science and that new pedagogic ways could help to be at least good in both. My personal frustration with logic implementations like Prolog is that the promise on focusing in the "what" instead of in the "how" is not fullfiled. I think that SMT solvers like Z3 are great in this topic at the expense of narrowing the problem space. |
|
|
Why do you think that is? I think it's because method syntax fits more neatly into the larger C# paradigm of imperative code. Using both requires the developer to pivot to a different mental model (declarative coding), so we try to standardize on the one that fits best in the bigger picture. This is what I mean by cognitive load. Most devs can surely handle both, but why make them do extra mental work when that effort is better spent on the problem domain.