retard wrote:
Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:04:13 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On 2010-01-04 19:15:39 +0100, "Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> said:
Aren't there people who swear by those languages for normal software
development purposes? And even if not, there are certainly languages
out there that are "cram everything into this paradigm, yay purity!"
and *are* either intended for everyday use or used by people for
everyday use.
Yes, just like some people swear by 'everything is impure' languages,
and go lengths to achieve immutability (e.g. Java). Why are those
prefering purity called religious, and those using completely 'impure'
languages practical?
Pure, partially pure, impure. All regimes can be religious or practical,
or both.
I think quite often the desire for practicality follows the principles of
fundamentalism. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings with this OT talk,
but even as an atheist I admit that some religions are quite ok. But the
fundamentalists are almost always dangerous to the persons near them.
It's quite common to hear things like
- "Everything must be modeled in UML 2.0"
- "This development process solves all problems, even the ones
introduced on the language level"
- "C++ and template metaprogramming provides extreme optimal performance
on this problem domain"
- "Large doses of REST, AJAX, XML, and Web 2.0 cloud will so totally
save this crappy project"
- "100% coverage in unit tests is integral part of our process. It
guarantees delivery of high quality end products"
- "In clean code functions should accept only one parameter"
Most of the fundamentalist technologies exist - surprise, surprise - only
in the imperative mainstream programmer world.
Meh. Most of the fundamentalist technologies exist in environments that
are being used and need improvement.
Andrei
