tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22587889.post4516167673331948783..comments2024-02-11T13:21:47.930+05:30Comments on Ruminations of a Programmer: It's the familiarity model!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01613713587074301135noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22587889.post-75389959532948254992012-05-29T16:36:25.484+05:302012-05-29T16:36:25.484+05:30Jim,
I can honestly say you rest easy about monads...Jim,<br />I can honestly say you rest easy about monads. They are extremely simple concepts, but grounded in a foreign conception of programming. Have no fear, as you accustom yourself to the statically typed FP view of the world, the "problem of monads" will resolve itself.<br /><br />Terms to pay attention to as they pass your view: Algebras, and Partial-orders; and ponder: "How many concepts we use in programming are partial-orders, and how might you represent this aspect of them algebraically"Andrae Muyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04967415260912980895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22587889.post-81892939103443276052012-03-02T22:03:20.320+05:302012-03-02T22:03:20.320+05:30I tend to write fairly dense code myself, but befo...I tend to write fairly dense code myself, but before turning in the final version of my code, I always consider who is going to be maintaining it and get rid of some of the clever code tricks that they might have trouble following.Daxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08009087262659272412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22587889.post-47249140415661712262012-02-21T07:29:31.611+05:302012-02-21T07:29:31.611+05:30As Rich Hickey says, elegance and familiarity are ...As Rich Hickey says, elegance and familiarity are orthogonal. Same goes for density, readability, etc.Tavis Rudd (openid only - no blog)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02741099115279342000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22587889.post-59672035747822139602012-02-20T21:24:05.936+05:302012-02-20T21:24:05.936+05:30Very nicely put.
From what I can tell, the fundam...Very nicely put.<br /><br />From what I can tell, the fundamental issue has to do with misplaced optimization (i.e. efficiency) combined with a psychologically undermining fear based self-suggestion of "what if this next abstraction I've yet to learn is the one that is just beyond my limit of capability". At least that is what I am currently facing as I attempt to learn Scala and Functional Programming after having _invested_ two decades into OOP (Eiffel, Delphi and Java).<br /><br />Do I spend the time attempting to make the leap to understand Functional Programming with all it's weird foreign and non-OO way of doing things? Example: the term monad has kept me up with nightmares of non-grokking now for almost a year, and that's after reading article after article attempting to explain it. Or, do I leverage what I already know and for what the market is already paying top dollar, or take the risk and time to invest in something that is foreign, it will be years before I am at an expert level again and during that time, I will suffer internal confusion and a confidence crisis as I continue to do OOP in my day job and attempt to do OOP + FP in my spare time?<br /><br />At this point, I am making the investment to learn Scala and Functional Programming. And I am framing it as an intellectual challenge knowing I might not ever get to leverage either in any real financial way like I have been able to with Java and OOP. And the cost, psychologically to me, has been pretty expensive. I figure I have another year, at least, of being uncomfortably ego-challenging confronted before I finally feel a sufficient level of Scala and FP confidence. So, that's two years I am pushing myself to invest.<br /><br />So, given that, I can see how many will choose to wait until Scala and FP are much more mainstream before taking their own investment risks, both psychologically and intellectually.Jim O'Flahertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06677570063739990322noreply@blogger.com