> > languages are showing superiority. However, still > > unanswered question is why the functional languages, > being > > around for so long, did not get more traction. > > Because they offer a degree of complexity not required by > most applications.
Implementations of functional languages in the past were not practical. They were too slow, they used too much memory, they generated obscure error messages, they used abstractions too far removed from how popular hardware actually worked. This has improved over time but has given them a bad reputation. Add to that that some of the prominent companies promoting functional languages went out of business (Symbolics), that most of their use was to solve difficult to understand and rather abstract problems (AI), that it took ages for some sort of standard libraries to emerge, that they were late to jump on the free/open source bandwagon required for almost any popular language nowadays. Finally some of the most practical benefits of functional programming (functions as parameters to functions and abstractions that permit operations on groups of data at a time for example) are currently being made more convenient to use in traditional languages making a switch less enticing.
Flat View: This topic has 60 replies
on 5 pages
[
«
|
2345
]
Previous Topic
