Go rant

[retard]

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:27:39 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> For another example, around 1990 the programming world decided that OOP
> was the solution to all programming problems. One of the results of that
> thinking is Java. We've now suffered through the inevitable backlash,
> and a more reasoned consensus these days is that OOP is very well suited
> to solving some problems, and for other problems one should use a
> different paradigm.

People have very differents opinions about the matter now. Some think 
that the "bloatness" of Java style OOP can be eliminated with extremely 
slow scripting languages that don't even do syntactic checks. People have 
started to hate type systems so much that modern languages don't do 
almost any kind of type checking (PHP!) or defer it as much as possible. 
Others think that we should express more things in the holy XML format. 
And the third camp things that everything would work just fine if we used 
Web 2.0 languages such as Flash, Javascript, (X)HTML, CSS, and some 
dynamic server side language such as Python (and RESTful protocols with 
as much XML as possible).

>> So all the Haskell/Erlang/ML/Scheme books you've read have been really
>> bad?  That only means that there's market for good FPL books, then!
> 
> Any FP programming text that puts the one line qsort front and center as
> an example of how great FP is is a book that has room for improvement,
> you bet.

I use the Okasaki book as my bible when talking about purely functional 
data structures.