|
|
|
|
|
by gbog
4607 days ago
|
|
Well, that's for theory. In practice I have yet to see a big CRUD like Facebook rewritten functional style, and would very interested to check how this magically dissolve the inherent complexity of such a beast. Until then, I'd continue to think that functional is shiny and sexy but that the proven and pragmatic way to keep complexity in check is still the good old and boring oop way. |
|
None of these approaches necessarily make the problem itself less complex. But as with a type system there are ways in which a language can help, or hinder. A language which adds too much complexity incidental to the problem you're trying to solve is an example. TFA is groping towards this point, but they did a poor job arguing it.
The proposition is that a functional language's abstractions, conventions, and patterns may make it easier to manage (not dissolve) complexity. It's hard to argue that (e.g.) functions which are referentially transparent are easier to reason about, for instance. Whether this is more difficult in the large, as a project scales, is unknown to me.
[0]: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/sicp/book/node29.html