At ours there certainly was some teaching of other paradigms, but the concentration was definitely on OO programming (ok, not all if it was the university, I had also taken AP Comp Sci in high school where the focus was also on OO). So when we did study things like Prolog or LISP, they just felt primitive and lacking, and most students don't give them a second thought. And nowadays more and more schools are just becoming Java trade schools, where students are lucky if they know any language other than Java when they graduate.
On Jul 15, 8:20 am, "twitter.com/nfma" <nuno.filipe.marq...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 July 2010 14:05, Nick <nwbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "FP has never really left academia anyway" > > > I hear this claim all the time. Erlang is of course the obvious > > counter-example, it was developed by and for the telecommunications > > industry. And F# and Clojure are more recently examples of functional > > languages that were born outside of academia. And languages such as > > Python and Ruby have been using functional constructs for nearly two > > decades now, and you cannot tell me you think they are only used in > > academia. > > > If anything academia is dominated by object oriented programming. > > Students are taught that OO is the only way to develop, and so once > > they graduate that is all they know. They have a tendency to view any > > other paradigm as primitive and beneath them and refuse to learn it. > > This really does not resonate to me... at my uni, the first language you > learn is scheme and one of the last languages is Java, though I got C++ and > Smaltalk80 on a OO programming course earlier. I also learned Prolog, LISP, > C, Assembly, etc... that are not inherently/at all OO languages... > > I think most universities (at least the good ones) try to give a broad view > and focus on concepts rather than on the tools. > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:29 am, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In our recent, erm, "discussion" one oft-mentioned issue came up: > > > > Is Java's downfall foreshadowed by the lack of FP constructs, and will > > > closures be "too little, too late" when they finally arrive? > > > > and, as so often happens in discussions of this nature, respondents > > divided > > > into the pro-FP and pro-OO camps > > > (plus one who seemed to think that *any* abstraction was good, regardless > > of > > > paradigm, and that computers would be programming themselves in the near > > > future anyhow...) > > > > A *few* posts later, the typical war-lines were drawn: > > > > "Future programming *will* be (at least partly) functional in nature, > > the > > > needs of concurrency demand it!" > > > > vs > > > > "Object-Orientation works, expanding Java like this just > > > adds unnecessary complexity, and FP has never really left academia > > anyway" > > > > It's very common for developers deeply embedded in the world of objects > > to > > > deride FP as being "complex", "academic", and "overly abstract", but what > > > really caught my attention this time was that the pro-FP crowd were > > giving > > > very definite concrete examples of the benefits to be obtained, whereas > > the > > > pro-OO crowd seemed to be hard waving around nebulous principles - this > > is > > > definitely a role reversal when compared to the usual stereotypes. > > > > Chances are that I'm biased. After all, I'm very active in the scala > > > community and a strong believer in the principles behind functional > > > programming, though I'd like to think I can see the benefits (and flaws) > > in > > > both paradigms. > > > > I'd be interested to know the general opinion. Is functional programming > > > still widely considered to be "abstract nonsense"? > > > > -- > > > Kevin Wright > > > > mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com > > > wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com > > > skype: kev.lee.wright > > > twitter: @thecoda > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
