Can you provide objective measures for "terrible code" and then examples of what you're describing?
It’s really complicated. Everybody includes lenses https://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens I don’t want to read all that stuff just for imperative syntax.
It’d both slow and hard to read. Compare these two: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
The c examples complexity lies in using SIMD. If you know simd it’s easy. You should know simd, it’s useful. The Haskell example is drivel. Long complicated and in the end hopelessly slow compared to the c example. You could als use simd in Haskell, but then it would just be C with extra steps.
> If you know simd it’s easy.
Surely "if you know Haskell it's easy" is equally applicable.
Plain crazy take. The c example uses basic coding to implement some clever maths with special fast instructions. Thehaskell example is just some dumb algo implemented with complicated programming. There is obviously nothing good about that.
You can also look at a c example without simd https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... It’s shorter and simpler and faster than the Haskell version. It’s not even close???
You did not provide objective measures. You're just providing subjective opinions.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it universally bad.
I don’t.
> But this is a matter of one's personal context and experience. There are things that I'd find hard to read that you would not, and vice versa.
Obviously.
> Just because you don't like something doesn't make it universally bad.
Not my point.
My claim is that most people who want to be good software engineers can spent their time better than doing functional programming. I’m trying to disprove the opposite claim. That claim being that you’d learn something important from doing it or that functional programming offers something important to the programmer. I’m simply sharing the result of my journey through it so that others don’t have to make the same mistake. If it’s fun to somebody they should of course do it. What upsets me is that I was caught up in this delusion that functional programming is worth spending significant time on.
This is the claim that you're making. And yet terms like "elegant" have no objective definition.
Why does that matter? You seem to really think one needs objective definitions? It should be clear that whether a definition is objective or not is subjective itself. The question is whether there is some shared experience. And most people agree on what’s simple and what isn’t. You can now argue that’s all cultural, but that’s also a rather ridiculous position. We all experience advanced math as more complicated than 2 word sentences and so on. And I’m arguing, using my experience and examples, that functional programming is unnecessarily complicated. Requiring objective measures either misses the point. It’s really not a reasonable ask.