Actually, I did. Snipping it from the replies and ignoring doesn't, in fact, make that evidence go away.
Whereas you have provided exactly zero evidence for your claims, except for repeating your opinion.
>What do you mean "works"?
It gets the job done effectively and efficiently. Caper Jones found half the effort to implement the same function points in Smalltalk vs. Haskell.
> FP has matured a lot in 30 years.
Not really. Still the same hyperbolic claims, and still the same meagre results.
> [OO] has all the problems I have tried to articulate previously.
No it doesn't, and just repeating an opinion over and over doesn't turn that opinion into fact.
> [Frederick Brooks an academic] Does it matter?
If it doesn't matter, then why did you bring it up? Oh right, to dismiss his widely cited article that you yourself referenced as "just one academic's opinion". Well, he is not, in fact "just" an academic, but has more practical experience with software than most people on the planet, including you and me. He is also an academic. So someone with vast amounts of industrial and academic experience and expertise.
> keep the debate civil.
It would have been nice had you done that.
Anyway, it is clear that you aren't interested in evidence or reasoned debate, so I think we can call it a day.
Have a good one.
For the record, I happen to really respect Fred Brooks, Alan Kay and a lot of what OOP has achieved (for example first-class modules). I called Brooks an "academic" as an acknowledgement that he has made big contributions, not as a putdown as you seem to imply. You are trying to paint me as an FP zealot, but I use both and appreciate the best parts of both. It is you that are coming across as heavily biased. Even your domain name has "object" in it.
Enjoy your objects!
./sentiment.st 'Fred Brookes is just one US academic.'
{
label: neg;
probability: {
neg: 0.5681116649451591;
neutral: 0.4912856963089782;
pos: 0.4318883350548409;
};
}
./sentiment.st 'Fred Brookes is one US academic.'
{
label: pos;
probability: {
neg: 0.4517101153187268;
neutral: 0.4880877595448765;
pos: 0.5482898846812732;
};
}
./sentiment.st 'Fred Brookes is a US academic.'
{
label: neutral;
probability: {
neg: 0.4032643317660632;
neutral: 0.7398809320488215;
pos: 0.5967356682339368;
};
}
The sentiment.st script:
#!env stsh
#-sentiment:text
(ref:http://text-processing.com/api/sentiment/ postForm: #{ #text: text })
[Caper Jones: Smalltalk twice as productive as Haskell]
> I never made any claims about Haskell
You made claims about FP and OO in general, and in particular questioned my statement that "OO gets the job done" and also claimed I provided no evidence for my claims. Haskell is an FP language and Smalltalk is an OO language, and both are considered premier exemplars of their respective genres. Being twice as productive sure sounds like "getting the job done" to me and there is empirical evidence for this being true.
> I'm sure many static type systems are bad, but it doesn't prove all are bad.
Nobody claimed that all static type systems are bad. However, the evidence is in that any claims of "obvious" superiority of static typing over dynamic typing for safety are plain wrong. Such as your original claim:
> Static typing is (obviously) safer than dynamic types.
Glad to see that you're now walking that earlier categorical statement back to "not all static type systems are bad", something I can agree with. I am actually pretty sure some are fairly good, particularly the non-bondage-and-discipline ones (gradual/hybrid) have a decent chance.
As a matter of fact, I am currently in the process of improving the fairly minimal type support in my own programming language. And I even have some ideas in the back of my mind of how to do non-horrible generics, but that isn't the primary focus.
You haven't provided any concrete evidence. Certainly no more than I have.
> But you cited unity as evidence for FP being superior for performance than OO
No, I provided it as evidence of OO being poor for performance and suggested that its new approach is closer to FP (i.e data centric). Perhaps a better example is Apache Spark or Google MapReduce for large scale data processing. Those frameworks are essentially FP, it's why lambdas were added to Java. So there's plenty of evidence that FP works for high performance.
> I did FP 30+ years ago and have been doing OO for around 40.
FP has matured a lot in 30 years. My point was that I have equal amounts of both and I have no reason to be biased. If you've done 40 years of mostly OOP, I'm not sure you can make the same claim.
> He was asked about scala, and said that if he would have to choose again today, he's not sure he would go with scala.
Scala is absolutely not a functional programming language and Odersky never claimed it was. It's primarily an object-oriented language with some functional features bolted on. Functions are not first-class and pervasive mutable state still exists. It would be just as unfair for me to judge OOP based on the shortcomings of C++.
> Because it works.
What do you mean "works"? Yes I can get the job done in OOP, but it has all the problems I have tried to articulate previously.
> Fred Brooks is not an academic.
From the article you linked: "In 1964, Brooks accepted an invitation to come to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and founded the University's computer science department. He chaired it for 20 years. As of 2013 he was still engaged in active research there"
So you are really splitting hairs here. Does it matter?
> It really helps to actually know something about people or approaches before dismissing out of hand.
Can we please refrain from personal insults and keep the debate civil. I have spent a decade reading the books and teachings of these people; and trying to apply their ideas in industry. I am not dismissing them out of hand - that's why I cite them sometimes. I could accuse you of doing the same for FP and its community, but I won't as it would be unfair.