It doesn't seem to contain any less bullshit than any other talk on FP. ;-)

Good Human

The essence of FP thinking seems to be mostly bullshit. ;-)

I really find Go very bad, rust is far better

My sentiments exactly. I started porting a complex C# app to Go in the hope of achieving greater simplicity and ran into a wall. Go seems designed to enable inexpensive drones in cubicles to churn out out basic but ugly code. I found myself increasing hating everything I was writing - it worked, but it was hideous. Then I found F# and haven't looked back. Porting my C# to F# - it's shorter, cleaner, more elegant, easier to test and easier to change. I'm not saying that you can't write good code in C# or Go - but the language is fighting you rather than helping you. F# almost forces you to write good code. Developing has become fun again.

Exactly my thoughts at the 50 minute mark

What you're describing is commutativity, not associativity. The latter would require the function inc >> (sqr >> double) to be the same as the function (inc >> sqr) >> double. The order of application is the same, but the order of composition can vary.

@@AntonBurger Thank you, this makes sense to me now.

it's been a year but yes that is true! a map is what is called a "Higher-kinded type".

Yeah! When JS started to have arrow functions and flatMap I thought wow isn't that pinnacle FP, but no, Js doesn't have a Maybe type, If you create a maybe type on your own then you need to implement the Functor, Monad and Applicative classes too. You'll also need a Either, and implement the classes on Either, etc. Simply put it's missing the entire GHC.Base lol

You can do absolutely everything in every Turing-complete language. :-)

Right? not sure why that guy didnt just step out... LOL

Still listening in 2022!

@@pepineros4681 the video is just over an hour long… how long is it going to take you to finish it?

How does that differ from an ordinary function, except that you just gave it a fancy new name. ;-)

Once you get used to the symbols, they become intuitive and readable. Mathematicians do exactly the same thing, for the same reasons. Which is easier to grok: Add two hundred and twenty two to one hundred and fourteen. Then divide the result by one hundred and thirty six. Then multiply the result by three hundred and two. ((222 + 114) / 136) * 302 In functional pseudocode this might look like: add 222 114 |> divide 136 |> multiply 302 which is even easier to read. In another talk, Scott cites a quote which basically says that it's a major error to design a language that's easy to read for the first half-hour and more difficult to read ever after. You simply have to trust that the notation makes sense and get over the initial discomfort. Languages like OCaml and F# and Haskell are designed by people who are a lot smarter than us, and we simply have to trust their judgement till we master the basics and build some fluency.

Because they want you to think that they are more intelligent than you. Every bullshitter in the world does that all the time. Just ask your local priest about the meaning of "doxology". ;-)

@@tullochgorum6323 Your boss doesn't pay you to be a mathematician-wannabe. He pays you to get the damn software finished. ;-)

@@lepidoptera9337 Have you ever actually used an ML-style language? The notation takes about a day to learn. It cuts out substantial amounts of boilerplate and makes the intent of the code much easier to grok. Personally, I find I can churn out reliable and readable code significantly more quickly in F# vs C#. This is a pretty typical reaction from people who make the switch. The idea that functional languages are only for mathematical programming is a myth. I'd recommend you read Scott Wlaschin's Domain Modelling Made Functional - one of the best programming books I've read in decades of coding. He shows how an ML-style language can create robust, concise and maintainable line-of-business code.

@@tullochgorum6323 If you have boilerplate in your code, then you are doing something wrong, already. Your boss doesn't pay you to write software systems that need a lot of boilerplate. He pays you to get the damn software finished. :-) I can also churn out a lot of code very quickly in Python. But when I need something that has 100% uptime and zero bugs, then I use C. C does exactly what you ask it to do. Every bug is on YOU. I guess you just can't stomach that kind of responsibility. ;-)

Yeah and its relation to surface area is baffling.

I'm going to have to stop watching if this keeps up. it's too much

Be humble even in the web space. Everybody knows a member function of a class thing. But that's not general high level approach of OO world. Possibility is different from Generality anyway. I think it's better to learn the skill to extract good and something useful from giants not to boast contextless snippets of exceptions.

@@soonshin-sam-kwon I don't see giants here, only dwarves and trolls. :-)