No company that has used a functional programming language made it really big...

No company that has used a functional programming language made it really big. Symbolics who were the lisp people failed. Face it, if we want to make software better we need to remove the functional programming features from modern programming languages. No anonymous functions. No closures. No lambdas. No bullshit.

Attached: anti-lambda.jpg (512x512, 195K)

Other urls found in this thread:

code.fb.com/security/fighting-spam-with-haskell/
blog.discordapp.com/scaling-elixir-f9b8e1e7c29b
clojure.org/community/success_stories
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

is that green peppers

no

1) There aren't enough highly skilled developers
2) Big companies won't take a "risk" on FP
3) Start ups will try but won't pay enough
4) Highly skilled developers want to be paid fairly

Attached: 1547053033358.jpg (1080x1350, 127K)

You nigger-loving fuck you touch my Haskell and you die. If you aren't a pleb, hard real time is made a whole lot useful beyond implementation with any functional paradigm in whatever. Haskell is just the may queen we're all ignoring

But most of you write in Java and Python dumb stuff no one uses, so meh yeah functional will likely die off unless concurrency and distributed applications take over and everyone decides to stop being idiots and think

>No company that has used a functional programming language made it really big.

code.fb.com/security/fighting-spam-with-haskell/

It doesn't matter what language a program is written in as long as it's written well. Any language that facilitates secure, stable, and fast code is perfectly fine, and it's up to the developers to learn how to use the tools before them. That being said, I generally don't use anything other than C and assembly, with the exception of scripting languages like Bash for convenience. I consider most other languages to be bloat slapped on top of C in order to hand hold retards, which just leads to lots and lots of shit code. Retards should never be allowed to touch any code that matters.

Attached: longcat.png (1126x10000, 1.46M)

>I generally don't use anything other than C and assembly, with the exception of scripting languages like Bash for convenience
Based and redpilled. Why would I learn skills that will be out of date in 5-10 years? C and Bash aren't going anywhere.

Functional programming is really useful in numerical computation as it's very close to the mathematics its trying to model, so there's no need for further abstractions.

For general codemonkey shit however, OOP is probably the safest and easiest when dealing with large codebases.

>profit determines whether a language or class of languages is worthwhile
How's it feel being nigger cattle?

Many pricey CAD vertical applications for Oil&Gas and HVAC are partially or completely coded on Common LISP/Visual LISP. They exist, but you don't know them OP.

Assembly is limited by what CPU. You nigger, that's a useless thing to remember any longer as all types of shit are being connected together into clusters or as nodes.
And might as well as learn an interpretive, scripting language than use BASH so you have something you can be a little creative with. Take a pic.

Yep. Was on oil rigs for a bit. Guess what we used?

In shit where, mistakes mean death/millions, functional has its place.

And yea, FORTRAN and LUA still exist for those wondering.

You can pinpoint the exact moment when it all became gay. That moment was when people forgot about Lisp and Smalltalk.

Bell Labs and its legacy is the seed of antichrist.

Attached: sadted.jpg (534x712, 61K)

I agree and Ted is based.

smalltalk was shit meant for kiddos hence why it got popular then died

lisp ok, but I primarily like it b/c a guy wrote a dialect in my native language where you can code and make it look like art, just as though you were writing it. turing complete, which yea doesnt say much, but the artistic part is neat. don't think you can make code that looks like a tiger and none of it being useless in any macro-family of languages (LISP is a macro-family, get over it)

>Walmart never made it really big.

What kind of software are you writing?

All the cool features of Lisp were adopted in modern languages except macros

if it involves heaps of data then functional is the proper way to manipulate em.

I know Target has parts of their supply chain management written in haskell.

IDK what you consider "big".

Functional programming is just academic wankery, if you want to do things in actual reality with a real computer is not worth the effort of learning it.

A number of train time tables in Germany use CL and banks are picking up Clojure.

Naughty Dog uses Racket.

Erlang runs a lot of infrastructure so you are wrong

>he can't gnu/pepperforce

Attached: Untitled.png (600x600, 43K)

Ahem

Attached: 1f9d6b50-619d-495a-8e1d-1d9ef93cf090-Jane-Street.jpg (433x186, 18K)

Is Discord not big enough for you?
blog.discordapp.com/scaling-elixir-f9b8e1e7c29b

Whatsapp infrastructure was built on Erlang.

there are use cases for functional languages, but they likely will never be the main language used by major companies. langs like scala, ocaml, haskell, etc are often used in small niches within larger environments

How shit is your eyesight?

>What is Jane Street for 20?

FOAD
clojure.org/community/success_stories

OOP is probably the simplest to extend, and design patterns and best practices try to make you write extensible code.
Good design requires you to know and understand all your requisites.
In software that is very rarely the case.
Companies decided that bad but extensible design is better for them.
In a ideal world all programs would be like TeX.

>clojure
>success
ok...

fuck off brainlet

There's no NEED for functional programing in most use-cases when what already works is just enough, and the risks associated when you don't know what you're doing are too much. But knowing at least the basics of FP concepts is vital to call yourself a proper software engineer as opposed to yet another code-monkey.

>knowing currying
>not being utter pajeet tier
it's the other way around poo in loo

>No company that has used a functional programming language made it really big.
Facebook is pretty big, and they have Haskell servers serving millions of QPS

vast majority of programmers think that and in the meanwhile they're producing shitty garbage code

let's face it functional programming makes much more sense than procedural or OOP but the average joe is just not willing to take the time to learn it / lacking in intelligence

perhaps in the next century or something, I guess...

YARON MINSKY I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE YOU

We use lambdas, closures, currying and composition extensively at my company. Functional JS :^)

Working in Swift is pretty similar, first class functions in a regular language really is a great middle ground between functional and imperative.

facebook made it big with PHP though

>All the cool features of Lisp were adopted in modern languages except macros

I have done everything with my gf except sex

>a guy wrote a dialect in my native language where you can code and make it look like art, just as though you were writing it. turing complete, which yea doesnt say much, but the artistic part is neat. don't think you can make code that looks like a tiger

WAT?

Viaweb? Y-combinator? Naughty Dogs? Jane Street?

More precisely, they made their own lisp dialects - GOOL first, then GOAL - to fully program their early games with. Later, they used racket for scripting their games but wrote the rest of the game in C. They say it's because they couldn't find devs who knew lisp, not because of any problems with lisp. Personally, I don't buy it. Surely they could have trained people.

Why TeX? The syntax is arcane, the programming ability is trash despite being a good feature (example: I want to generate an 'animation' for beamer were I add 2 matching characters of a string each slide, and color them red if they don't match, green otherwise - but the strings are large and complex and I don't want to do that manually. I should be able to easily script this and use arbitrary strings to generate several such animations throughout my presentation. Think matching peptides or nucleotide sequences.), it has several issues with formatting, you need 5 billion packages to get most basic things done (basic figures and tables are shit for example so you always replace them), it doesn't do utf-8 by default, and a ton of other issues.
It's a "it's trash but there's literally no alternative" kind of tier.

Wrong. Show me a modern language able to do image-based programming. Show me your programming language telling me what the source code of a given function is. Show me your language run an erroneous function (say, 1/0 generating a division by 0 error), and getting a chance to rewrite this erroneous line at runtime, without instrumentation.

training people costs money

Reddit was originally written in lisp, but was rewritten in python eventually. It became big on lisp, not python.

Dedicated functional langs are a really stupid idea for general purpose programming but you're also stupid if you think first-class functions and closures aren't useful

>non-deterministic lazily evaulated GCed lang for hard realtime

Rewriting your entire software stack should surely cost more, no?

naughty dog did not write their entire games in lisp or any other scripting language, they wrote their game engine in C/C++ and only used lisp for game specific scripts

t. literal inbred.

what?

>literally too inbred to google
lol

But is the GNU cat really faster than the plan9 one?

Yes. Not only faster, but much less error-prone (handles edge cases correctly), and much more featureful. Moreover, because it's well documented, it's much easier to modify.

Except for realtime microtrading, jets control systems and probably everything else.

>767 line cat is easier to modify than 35 line cat

Attached: brainlet.png (645x729, 77K)

Most expressive way of programming IMO. Functions compose everything effortlessly, mutable state keeps things straightforward.

LinkedIn Scala
Forthright akka (Scala)

wtf are you talking about, whatsapp uses elixir/erlang, same with so many other huge companies making billions.


It's the one valid time where functional is best, for concurrency and the ability to send messages out between any servers like it's running locally.

>No company that has used a functional programming language made it really big.

facebook?

Verbose programs are easier to tweak than short one. Good luck trying to had small behavioral change to a one liner.

>faster
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
#include
#include
#include

int p[2];
const size_t sz = 65536;

void cat(int fd)
{
ssize_t nb_read, nb_spliced;
while ((nb_read = splice(fd, NULL, p[1], NULL, sz, SPLICE_F_MOVE)) > 0) {
do {
if ((nb_spliced = splice(p[0], NULL, STDOUT_FILENO, NULL, nb_read, SPLICE_F_MOVE)) < 0) {
perror("splice");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
nb_read -= nb_spliced;
} while (nb_read > 0);
}
if (nb_read < 0) {
perror("splice");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if (pipe(p) < 0) {
perror("pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}

if (argc < 2) {
cat(STDIN_FILENO);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

int i;
int fd;
for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
if ((fd = open(argv[i], O_RDONLY)) < 0) {
perror("open");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
cat(fd);
close(fd);
}

return 0;
}

The only thing against it is that it's not portable, since splice() is Linux-specific.

>being a stupid nigger

What's wrong with that. homie?

>Functional programming is really useful in numerical computation as it's very close to the mathematics its trying to model, so there's no need for further abstractions.

FP may not be as much "abstracted" from the equation you write on paper, but it is sure a hell "abstracted" from the way a computer works. FP is inherently inefficient for numerical computation.

>HVAC
AutoLISP, AutoLISP everywhere