functional programmers: true high-level languages are the ones in which you don't need to think about the irrelevant, it's just you and the algorithm! also functional programmers: haha this pleb wrote an explicitly recursive traversal function instead of automatically deriving it by utilizing an anusomorphism over coLGBT-coalgebraic comonads and an epsilon turbofunctor xD
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 8:41
Epsilon turbofunctor fades in sight of the power of dependent types.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 8:47
Functional programming is like marxism. There is no clear goal, but just an overarching theme which can be "worked" for. That is why woman and insecure men love it.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:00
>>3 but that's the opposite of marxism. marxism has a clear utopian goal (muh real communism!), and some dialectical deterministic mumbo-jumbo historiosophy to explain that reaching such goal is inevitable. contrary to almost any other view of history (aside from Hegel and other Hegel-inspired historiosophies, like the concept of 'end of history') in which there's no fixed goal.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:04
The virgin category theorist vs the chad type theorist.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:06
>>3 Unlike type theory Hegelian logic has never been formalised (because it is dumb, needlessly complex, and probably unsound)
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:06
>>5 the virgin typefag vs the chad untyped lambda calculus
in general, Hegelian dialectic is not logic. it's an anus-backwards approach for people who don't understand actual logic
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:08
>>8 Hegelian dialectic works on NPCs, so its useful.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:10
All NPC thought patterns can be easily reduced to Hegelian dialectic: problem → reaction → solution
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:11
all problems can be reduced to dubs
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 9:17
I wish recursion schemes were baked into haskal stdlib and had user-friendly names. I mean, their're are useful for reducing boilerplate in recursive definitions and adding more generality to them, but good luck explaining that the best way to implement dynamic programming is through 'histomorphism' and 'Cofree' without sounding like a fucking anus.
>>4 Marxism is a critique of capitalism. Its goal is to abolish it, because then things will surely be better. Functional programming is a critique of C. Its goal is to abolish it, because then things will surely be better.
Marx showed the flaws of the capitalistic system, but did not make another system. He guessed abolishing it will probably lead into an utopia.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 16:24
Marxism and functional programming both worship ideals which never have been proven to work in practice. Whenever it is put to the test, it inevitably fails, to which the Marxist/functional programmer responds by doubling down on xir's delusion (``it wasn't real Marxism'', ``you should have used futumorphisms'')
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 16:44
>>14 Functional programming isn't a critique of anything, its a branch of computer science. You're probably thinking of dependent types in the context of type-system security.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 18:04
Intuitionistic Type Theory is a critique of Classical Logic and Set Theory.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-21 19:25
>>14 Marxism isn't a critique of anything, its a branch of social science. You're probably thinking of marxian economics in the context of economics.
Dialectical materialism is a branch of political economy, developed by marxists. Marxism is an ideology.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-22 5:25
/pol/ros take note: computer science was developed by Anal Touring. By your logic is homo-gay-computer-science and you should throw away your sodomite PCs and iPhones.
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-22 6:50
type-check my dubs
Name:
Anonymous2019-01-22 6:55
>>14 Lithp is older than C. ML is slightly younger than it but it was created independently, not as a critique. your're are confusing functional programming (which can be good) with functional programmers (who are anuses)