its like learning microwave instruction manual, but for years
>>107099035>he doesn't know any functional programminghello saar
>>107099035it takes like 5 minutes to learn scheme
>>107099202Is JavaScript the Akaza Akari of functional programming?
>>107099229JS is more like the brat one
>>107099241Then who's the Himawari (Oppai Monster) to JS's Sakurako? React.js?
>>107099211it takes like 5 minutes to eat shit
>>107099202point me to a CPU that runs like a functional programming machineyour compiler just translates all that monadic nonsense into iterative assembly code
>>107099402This is something stupid people say because they heard someone say it and they thought it sounded smart.State is trivially represented by binding local variables in closures. Anything a physical machine does can be easily represented by functional languages.What’s more nearly no languages besides assembly describe the operations done in memory so this argument says nothing at all about functional languages anyway. The only thing you should care about is whether the problem domain is described by the language, not the actual machine itself, which is the whole point of an abstraction over assembly language.
>>107099035you can tell a windows fag made this
>>107099437factorial(15)=out of memory
>>107099211Yeah, but then you have to glaze it for the rest of your life.
>>107099035NoIt's like learning solving problems in an intelligent way, using the right tools for the job.Your tier list sucks ass btw, you nwvwr had a job.
>>107099035c++ is only D tier if you're on a shared project, solo it's pretty good because you can only use the good shit.
>>107099437>Anything a physical machine does can be easily represented by functional languages.Ain’t nobody arguing that. The real question is: why bother if that’s not how the actual machine processes code?
>>107099611>c# a tier Indian oop slop enjoyer detected
>>107099402https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine
>>107099757Because this really is a poorly conceived argument against nearly all languages but assembly and it comes down to what you believe a language is and what programming really is.Most sensible people would consider good programming to happen when your language describes the problem you want to solve. In the same way that assembly somewhat hides the binary codes from you, so we can think in terms of more useful abstractions, and that way make programs that do a much greater variety of things. If you restrict yourself to demanding the language describe the machine itself too literally, your language becomes hard to use to describe other interesting problems. It’s why you won’t be asked to code in assembly for anything other than performance sensitive programs or operating systems or the like, because that’s the language of the domain.
>>107100005>all languages but assemblyLanguages like C resemble how the CPU actually does the calculation. Haskellcels so far up their category-theoretic abstract nonsense that you cannot understand that theoretic Turing equivalence doesn't always translate to irl equivalent performance.Take a simple for-loop and rewrite it as a recursion. Is this the same thing in theory? Does this make some abstract nonsense worshippers cum in their pants? Sure. Does it actually run at the same speed? No, it fucking doesn't. It runs worse.
