Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikety | Hacker News Reader

Why not go full functional programming at that point? If the main issue with FP has been accessibility, then it should really take off now.

View on HN

When you do fully value-oriented programming in Rust (i.e. no interior mutability involved) that's essentially functional programming. There's mutable, ephemeral data involved, but it's always confined to a single well-defined context and never escapes from it. You can even have most of your code base be sans-IO, which is the exact same pattern you'd use in Haskell.

I actually like rust more than Haskell, but `You can even have most of your code base be sans-IO, which is the exact same pattern you'd use in Haskell.` glosses over the fact that in Haskell it's enforced at compile time.

Another argument as to why rust isn't the forever-language. My forever language should include effects!

Even rust has need of this. For example, I want a nopanic effect I can put on a function which makes it a compile error for anything that function calls to panic.

Though I think it's the closest language right now, ideally you have something that is close to "zero-overhead" as your forever language.

I really like how flix.dev looks, but there's always a little nagging at the back of my head that something like rust will always produce more performant software.

> Even rust has need of this. For example, I want a nopanic effect I can put on a function which makes it a compile error for anything that function calls to panic.

This!

This apart from build times is my biggest request for the language.

Nopanic, nomalloc, etc.

I wouldn’t because idiomatic Haskell is way slower than idiomatic Rust.

Isn’t Rust a pretty good functional language? It has most of the features that enable safe, correct code without being anal about immutability and laziness that make performance difficult to predict.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com