1. 11
  1.  

  2. 10

    Makes me think of Curse of the Excluded Middle where Erik Meijer talks about functional-ish programming displacing the gains that could occur by full functional programming.

    By this persons reasoning, I could program functionally in C.

    I’d like to see a more detailed post titled Necessary but not Sufficient Mechanisms for Functional Programming

    1. 2

      By this persons reasoning, I could program functionally in C.

      Are you referring to the OP? If so, I’m not sure how you gathered that. Look at OP’s first point: “Standard tooling fosters simplicity.”

      1. 4

        It’s in reference to the “Functions are first-class” section. While functional programming is ill defined, function pointers alone do not make a language functional.

        I find the headline a bit linkbaitish since the author concludes with:

        Go is not a functional language, nor does it support the common functional applications. However, the spirit of Go definitely nods in the direction of the functional ideal: simplicity and ease of reasoning.

        I’d argue that good code is simple and easily reasoned, regardless of which language or paradigm used.

        1. 2

          It’s in reference to the “Functions are first-class” section.

          I know that. Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. My point was that the OP’s reasoning would not apply to C because it would require ignoring everything else the OP said.

          I find the headline a bit linkbaitish since the author concludes that Go is not a functional programming language:

          shrug If it is, it’s pretty mild bait. To me, the headline implies that the OP is trying to persuade functional programmers to give Go a try. And indeed, that’s exactly what OP tries to do.