Raynes's Profile User Rating: ****-

Reputation: 613 Enlightened
Expert w/DIC++
Active Posts:
2,833 (1.09 per day)
05-January 09
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Private

Previous Fields

OS Preference:
Favorite Browser:
Favorite Processor:
Favorite Gaming Platform:
Your Car:
Dream Kudos:
Expert In:
Functional Programming

Latest Visitors

Icon   Raynes has not set their status

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Java 8 Released

    Posted 19 Mar 2014

  2. In Topic: 10 Programming Languages You Should Learn

    Posted 17 Mar 2014

    View PostAdamSpeight2008, on 18 March 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

    With Pure Functions you cant do anything. IOMonad any one?

    Input and Output involves mutable state.

    Two things here.

    First of all, why is this relevant to this discussion? Is it entirely necessary? It's the kind of pointless nonsense I was talking about in my previous post.

    Secondly, I mean absolutely no offense by this, but you do not know what you're talking about in this case. Monads are one method with which to isolate IO. You can do input and output just fine in Haskell, which is a purely functional programming language. It's wrapped in the IO monad as a way to isolate and manage side effects. Read the answer here: https://stackoverflo...e-io-monad-pure

    I can happily provide more resources if this is unclear, but how Haskell does IO and still remains purely functional is a commonly asked question and thus is easily googleable.

    Your next question is likely "HAH! BUT IF I CAN DO IO THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER?". Well, monads isolate side effects so that side effectful code is clearly separated from pure code. You assert that with pure functions "you can't do anything", but that's clearly false and can be proven so by browsing the code inside the Haskell package list, which has libraries and programs for most things you could imagine. The only reason that most of the code we write in imperative languages is tangled up in side effects is because we don't have Haskell's type system forcing us to write our code as purely functional pieces inside of a thin IO layer. It's more about how you structure your code than anything. You can do the same thing in most languages that give you a few foundational tools -- it's just that Haskell is designed around it and forces it on you.

    View PostAdamSpeight2008, on 18 March 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

    I never said it was / wasn't.

    Question, Any OS written total written in purely functional language?

  3. In Topic: 10 Programming Languages You Should Learn

    Posted 17 Mar 2014

    I loathe these articles, threads, and everything relating to this concept that you should learn certain languages and a certain number of languages because REASONS.

    I'm an advocate for functional programming. Why? Because it's another tool in the toolbox, and it's one that a lot of people walk right past as if it weren't there and any person who has actively put effort forth to write code in a functional style, or has used a language like Haskell for any remotely substantial portion of work, will tell you this. It's not about "functional programming is better because of x". It's just another tool. Lots of problems are elegantly represented in functional style, some more elegantly represented in other ways.

    Finally, I think that if we spent 70% of the time we spend bitching about which languages we should learn instead actually learning and hacking with some unfamiliar languages, we'd all benefit from it substantially, as would the quality of these discussions. I swear, if I see another debate on whether or not FP is "academia" I'm going to just explode to pieces. I've spent the vast majority of my career writing code in Clojure for a living. Recently got a new job and write Python for a living. Tools. They're tools. I use them to get work done the best way I can.

    Furthermore, guess what happened when I and a coworker suggested we use Clojure for some potential future projects? Screaming and employees running with fear? Nope, interest and excitement. At the very least, startups are embracing new technologies. I attended a meetup at Whisper recently. They use Erlang and Elixir, and you can be sure that they can justify why.

    They're just tools and if you *can* learn a new tool, you should probably do it.

    As an aside, I'm unclear what baavgai means by asserting that imperative languages are easier to debug. I'd assert the opposite, that languages (and even just code written in such a style) that focus on immutable values and referential transparency are in fact more or less *designed* to be easier to debug. For pure functions you can more or less just write a unit test covering your inputs and it will be pretty guaranteed to work. Throw in some state and who knows what's going to go down.

My Information

Member Title:
D.I.C Lover
22 years old
February 2, 1994
Los Angeles
Functional programming, programming in general, writing, music, etc.
Forum Leader:
Functional Programming
Full Name:
Anthony Grimes
Years Programming:
Programming Languages:
Clojure, Haskell, Ruby, Python, Go, Elixir


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  1. Photo

    Biggie_smallz Icon

    04 Feb 2013 - 22:53
    Hello Raynes can you please get back to me.. I need help with some scheme programming?
  2. Photo

    mostyfriedman Icon

    26 Nov 2012 - 14:31
    Give me your lambdas or I will TAKE them.
  3. Photo

    Programmist Icon

    13 Oct 2012 - 06:13
    http://tryclj.com/ <-- Very nice. I'm planning to use this to teach my nephew a bit about functional languages. Would be cool if this made it into a codeacademy.com lesson.
  4. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    17 Mar 2012 - 14:01
    whens your book gonna come out?
  5. Photo

    no2pencil Icon

    19 Feb 2012 - 10:08
    Hey, hope the book is going strong!
  6. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    17 Dec 2011 - 22:24
    your rep is a power of 2!!
  7. Photo

    Sergio Tapia Icon

    09 Sep 2011 - 21:24
    Regarding the upvote I gave, it was a misclick. DIC doesn't let us change our votes, a la StackOverflow. :P He definitely deserved one of my downvotes.
  8. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    05 Jul 2011 - 19:34
    nice hair man :) !!
  9. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    24 Jun 2011 - 16:24
    i thought i would give it a try... if he can manage to get me to learn a functional language then maybe i can get him to learn C... you never know ;)
  10. Photo

    Dogstopper Icon

    20 Jun 2011 - 04:14
    Haha....funny...Raynes learning C?
  11. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    11 Apr 2011 - 20:18
    you should learn C, it's beastly fast. i love programing with NO recursion and LOTS of pointers with LOTS of side effects. :)
  12. Photo

    xclite Icon

    01 Apr 2011 - 09:18
    Fair enough. Maybe you'll get lucky and never need one :)
  13. Photo

    xclite Icon

    31 Mar 2011 - 09:52
    Question of interest - do you plan on learning C or any of its direct descendants? Just curiosity =p
  14. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    25 Mar 2011 - 19:08
    me no can haz ur functional programing skills :(
  15. Photo

    ishkabible Icon

    24 Mar 2011 - 20:36
    i wish you could impart your functional knowledge to me. i give you a little imperative wanna trade :)
  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2