From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net>
Subject: Re: Curious about functional programming
Date: 2000/08/03
Message-ID: <3174286879763747@naggum.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 653991354
References: <8l9p1n$f0q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3988F6D8.72F28D0D@mindspring.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 965304230 29341 195.0.192.66 (3 Aug 2000 12:03:50 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Aug 2000 12:03:50 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Link Davis <linkdavis@mindspring.com>
| It simply takes longer to read and understand a web of side-effects
| than to review primary functions and those they depend on.

  Let's restate this as: It simply takes longer to read badly written
  code than to read well-written code.  From this obvious position, it
  behooves the proponent of any paradigm to compare well-written code
  in his favorite and his least favorite paradigms.  I don't think I
  have seen this yet from those who favor functional programming --
  they always compare themselves to really bad side-effect programming
  and win, hands down, just like any other programming style would.

  Another obvious position is this: It simply takes longer to do what
  you're not trained for or not good or don't like at than it takes to
  do what you are trained for and good at and like.  Those who compare
  their own skills at their favorite and their least favorite ends of
  the spectrum tend to forget this, too.

#:Erik
-- 
  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.