On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:09:24 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
I think you will be pleased with the argument, given D's
philosophy:
https://yinwang0.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/oop-fp/
The thing I don't like with many such "pure paradigm" languages
is not actually the fact that they stick to a single approach and
harm the toolset. It is the fact that they define set of
abstractions and then try to tie those to existing computer
hardware. With modern insanely clever optimizing compilers it may
even work performance-wise but it harms learning curve in least
pleasant way. If language is built as bottom-up abstraction, it
is relatively trivial to learn for someone familiar with assembly
level. Any such language. If it is built top-down from imaginary
abstraction set, it is always a completely new thing every time
and you often have no idea what certain concept actually means
(like, is "function" here really a function or some obscure
wrapper that emulates it?)
I would favor pure FP languages much more if computers would have
existed that operated in similar matter on hardware level but it
does not seem like a real thing to happen ;)
