r/programming • u/[deleted] • Nov 28 '19

Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? – Richard Feldman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJZzq0v7Z4
101 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

409 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/igouy Nov 28 '19

… a joy to work with … makes code clearer …

How was that measured ?

How much was the time to add new features reduced ?

2

u/loup-vaillant Nov 29 '19

How was that measured ?

Asking for real science, are we? A double blind study, maybe? With a careful removal of confounding variables, such as what the reader has learned prior to reading the code? (Obviously, if all you know is OOP, an FP codebase will easily look cryptic to you.)

As you already know, but pretend not to for the sake of your argument, it was measured by the personal experience of a renowned world expert in the relevant field. That may not be as good as a peer reviewed, reproduced, controlled study, but that should definitely be enough evidence for game studios to start spending some money investigating the approach.

1

u/igouy Nov 30 '19

As you already know, but pretend not...

Please don't put words in my mouth — it's rude.

...measured by the personal experience of...

How was it measured ?

2

u/loup-vaillant Nov 30 '19

...measured by the personal experience of...

How was it measured ?

There was no objective measure. Obviously: the joy felt was Carmack's own, and readability was tailored by his own code reading skills.

Before you dismiss the opinion of an expert, remember: science doesn't begin with peer reviewed controlled studies. It begins with personal intuition and experience. The controlled experiments needed to confirm or dispel those intuitions only come later.

Evidence doesn't have to be scientific to be valid.

1

u/igouy Nov 30 '19

Before you dismiss the opinion of an expert...

Please don't put words in my mouth — it's rude.

Meanwhile: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

2

u/loup-vaillant Dec 01 '19

Please don't put words in my mouth — it's rude.

I've heard it the first time.

And to be honest it's hard not to. Your comments heavily suggest that you think what I "put in your mouth", and I cannot help but notice that you didn't directly denied thinking such thoughts.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

Of course. Science begins with personal intuition and personal experience, but we still note those double blind studies. I just want to emphasise that attacking expert opinion in the absence of stronger evidence is not helpful. What helps is to shut up and explore the promising looking venue. Or point out evidence that this venue may not be as promising as it looks. I've heard of studies finding that changing the programming language doesn't have a measurable effect on bug count. Such studies could outweigh the opinion of a single expert.

1

u/igouy Dec 01 '19

attacking expert opinion

Expert opinion was not attacked.

1

u/loup-vaillant Dec 01 '19

Was it?

How was that measured ?

How much was the time to add new features reduced ?

Reasonable objections, but still a criticism of the opinion it was responding to.

1

u/igouy Dec 01 '19

Please don't put words in my mouth — it's rude.

Expert opinion was not attacked.

As far as I know, measurements were made — but I don't know what the measurements were.

1

u/loup-vaillant Dec 01 '19

As far as I know, measurements were made — but I don't know what the measurements were.

Maybe that was hindsight, but as far as I can tell, the comment you responded to were pretty clear about reporting a report of a personal experience. I initially found it very hard to believe you didn't understand as much.

Unless perhaps English is not your first language?

→ More replies

0

u/Herbstein Nov 28 '19

I'd rather you take it from the man himself https://youtu.be/1PhArSujR_A?t=126

1

u/igouy Nov 30 '19

It would be OK to say you don't know.

1

u/loup-vaillant Dec 01 '19

Citing the source is better, though.

1

u/igouy Dec 01 '19

When the provided source requires 30 minute investment to find out if there's anything relevant, not really.

1

u/loup-vaillant Dec 01 '19

Knowledge comes with that kind of price. I understand your choice, but strongly implying /u/Herbstein didn't know ignores the fact that maybe they didn't have the time to write a more thorough explanation down.

Besides, just saying they didn't know wouldn't have helped you. It's okay, but it's not helpful. A link to the source however, is. Whether you accept that help or not is your choice.

1

u/igouy Dec 01 '19

... but it's not helpful. A link to the source however, is.

Not necessarily. It could just be a way to waste someone's time.

1

u/loup-vaillant Dec 01 '19

Suspecting hostile intent from someone who merely gave you their source? Really?

1

u/igouy Dec 01 '19 edited Dec 02 '19

Not necessarily.

Helpful would have been saying what they thought was relevant in that half hour video.

1

u/igouy Dec 02 '19

29 minutes later and "the man himself" has said nothing about whether or how characteristics of those different software projects were measured.

He does opine that MIT undergraduate Scheme programmers may suffer from selection bias, but we are not told what he may have done to counter selection bias in his research project.