I don't think this commentary is really fair. It's also insular and bad for the reputation of the Haskell community. There are enough barriers to exploring FP and Haskell already. The purpose of the article was to encourage people to start taking baby steps toward FP, not to demonstrate a deep mastery of the subject. Joel's blog is read by a wide range of technology people, most of whom have a principally OO background. _javascript_ was the obvious choice (it's more widely used than any other language with lambda nature). The word Functor is heavily overloaded in computer science. His use of the word is clearly a reference to the Functor Design Pattern and was appropriate for his readership. Sure, it's a long distance from the meaning of the word in category theory, but who really cares? I actually think that the appropriate paper to cite would be "Lambda: The Ultimate Imperative" by Guy Steele in 1976. It doesn't matter how old the academic literature is. If the lessons from the literature are not in widespread use, then it isn't a bad thing to try to popularize them. What he did at MS as a developer & development manager arguably made them a boatload of money. His own company seems to do quite well. All of this gives him high quality commercial credentials. An article in his blog can do a great deal to help FP (lazy or strict) be more widely appreciated. Reilly H. On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Jared Updike wrote:
|
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
