Talking to FPConf speakers (part 2)
Hello!
FPConf conference tomorrow, today is the last chance to buy a ticket and join! Registration is here .
The day before we decided to ask our speakers one rather ambiguous question. Most of the responses were published yesterday - here
')
And today we received a response from our guest Edward Kmett. While we publish without translation, we will update the post after the conference.
The question was:
In object-oriented languages, there is a well-known list of design patterns from Gang of Four. There is no such list in the functional languages. From your point of view, why so?
Such patterns are not needed when programming in functional languages or just their canonical list has not yet developed?
Edward Kmett , Head of Haskell core libraries committee, Haskell programmer, mathematician.
It is possible to make it into a library. We use the design patterns to talk about iterators, visitors, singletons, command patterns, etc. It means that each of them doesn’t have any specific instantiation. It is a symbol of pushing with laws alone. Functional programmers are much much happier with symbol pushing than imperative programmers. It is a matter of course.
We do have "design patterns" after a fashion in the functional programming world. The notions of the monitors "transformers", of the syntaxes of the syntax trees are of ». Data.Vector replicates the same list-like API a half dozen times. Functional idioms. It’s a bit different.
In practice, I’m a concept theoretic sense. Why? It should be noted.
But it’s not really a matter of course. as functional programmers. It’s not an abstraction at all.
What do you think about this?
Let's discuss on FPConf.ru . Join now!
FPConf conference tomorrow, today is the last chance to buy a ticket and join! Registration is here .
The day before we decided to ask our speakers one rather ambiguous question. Most of the responses were published yesterday - here
')
And today we received a response from our guest Edward Kmett. While we publish without translation, we will update the post after the conference.
The question was:
In object-oriented languages, there is a well-known list of design patterns from Gang of Four. There is no such list in the functional languages. From your point of view, why so?
Such patterns are not needed when programming in functional languages or just their canonical list has not yet developed?
Edward Kmett , Head of Haskell core libraries committee, Haskell programmer, mathematician.
It is possible to make it into a library. We use the design patterns to talk about iterators, visitors, singletons, command patterns, etc. It means that each of them doesn’t have any specific instantiation. It is a symbol of pushing with laws alone. Functional programmers are much much happier with symbol pushing than imperative programmers. It is a matter of course.
We do have "design patterns" after a fashion in the functional programming world. The notions of the monitors "transformers", of the syntaxes of the syntax trees are of ». Data.Vector replicates the same list-like API a half dozen times. Functional idioms. It’s a bit different.
In practice, I’m a concept theoretic sense. Why? It should be noted.
But it’s not really a matter of course. as functional programmers. It’s not an abstraction at all.
What do you think about this?
Let's discuss on FPConf.ru . Join now!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/264737/
All Articles