Comments on: Everyone’s crazy about FP

By: Luca Minudel

Luca Minudel — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:56:17 +0000

it is a common misconception that dynamically typed language remove the types dependencies.

it is true only for the edit and compile/interpretation time, while there is still a dependency at run-time.

So the DIP holds true also for dynamically typed language.

By: matteo

matteo — Sat, 26 May 2012 13:38:18 +0000

As far as I know, Clojure is a fine language. It’s a very credible variant of Lisp, which is certainly not a dumbed down version of anything, and I hear it has a very good JVM implementation.

What I object to is the implied statement that “Clojure (or FP) is great because OOP has problems”. FP is a great thing on its own merits, thank you! And OO is a great thing too. Being good at OOP takes care, practice and perseverance. So does being good at FP!

Don’t blame the tools when your results are not good.

By: Giorgio Sironi

Giorgio Sironi — Sat, 26 May 2012 09:21:46 +0000

Indeed primitive obsession in functional languages is still one of the real difficulties for me to overcome while learning FP.
It’s also possible that languages like Clojure make the same trade-off between paradigm and familiarity that C++ and Java made with OO; in both cases what we’re seeing is a dumbed-down version of the real OO/FP thing, either classes full of setters or programs with no referential transparency.