I agree completely. But FP also agrees. So it's unclear to me why you think anyone enamored of it would disagree. I think it's fair to say that the whole point of FP is to make focusing on behavior a *safe* thing to do. But to be clear, I'm not enamored with FP. It's a tool like any other, apt in some circumstances, abusive in others. Those who would trade expressiveness for safety deserve neither.
On 8/17/20 7:36 PM, Prof David West wrote: > *[The following sentence is just to annoy glen and jon, who, I believe, are > enamored of functional programming.]* > > /Of course, personally, I think all of this is nonsense and that the only > criteria that should be used to decompose complex systems or to design > programming modules, is //_behavior_//./ > > *[End trolling]* -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
