#
msgid ""
msgstr ""

msgid "title: The Next Paradigm Shift in Programming - video review"
msgstr ""

msgid "date: 2020-11-08"
msgstr ""

msgid "layout: post"
msgstr ""

msgid "lang: en"
msgstr ""

msgid "ref: the-next-paradigm-shift-in-programming-video-review"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"This is a review with comments of \"[The Next Paradigm Shift in "
"Programming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YbK8o9rZfI)\", by Richard "
"Feldman."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"This video was *strongly* suggested to me by a colleague. I wanted to "
"discuss it with her, and when drafting my response I figured I could publish"
" it publicly instead."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"Before anything else, let me just be clear: I really like the talk, and I "
"think Richard is a great public speaker. I've watched several of his talks "
"over the years, and I feel I've followed his career at a distance, with much"
" respect. This isn't a piece criticizing him personally, and I agree with "
"almost everything he said. These are just some comments but also nitpicks on"
" a few topics I think he missed, or that I view differently."
msgstr ""

msgid "Structured programming"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"The historical overview at the beginning is very good. In fact, the very "
"video I watched previously was about structured programming!"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"Kevlin Henney on \"[The Forgotten Art of Structured "
"Programming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFv8Wm2HdNM)\" does a deep-dive"
" on the topic of structured programming, and how on his view it is still "
"hidden in our code, when we do a `continue` or a `break` in some ways. Even "
"though it is less common to see an explicit `goto` in code these days, many "
"of the original arguments of Dijkstra against explicit `goto`s is applicable"
" to other constructs, too."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"This is a very mature view, and I like how he goes beyond the \"don't use "
"`goto`s\" heuristic and proposes and a much more nuanced understanding of "
"what \"structured programming\" means."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"In a few minutes, Richard is able to condense most of the significant bits "
"of Kevlin's talk in a didactical way. Good job."
msgstr ""

msgid "OOP like a distributed system"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"Richard extrapolates Alan Kay's original vision of OOP, and he concludes "
"that it is more like a distributed system that how people think about OOP "
"these days. But he then states that this is a rather bad idea, and we "
"shouldn't pursue it, given that distributed systems are known to be hard."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"However, his extrapolation isn't really impossible, bad or an absurd. In "
"fact, it has been followed through by Erlang. Joe Armstrong used to say that"
" \"[Erlang might the only OOP "
"language](https://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop/)\", since "
"it actually adopted this paradigm."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"But Erlang is a functional language. So this \"OOP as a distributed system\""
" view is more about designing systems in the large than programs in the "
"small."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"There is a switch of levels in this comparison I'm making, as can be done "
"with any language or paradigm: you can have a functional-like system that is"
" built with an OOP language (like a compiler, that given the same input will"
" produce the same output), or an OOP-like system that is built with a "
"functional language (Rich Hickey calls it \"[OOP in the "
"large](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROor6_NGIWU)\"[^the-language-of-the-"
"system])."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"So this jump from in-process paradigm to distributed paradigm is rather a "
"big one, and I don't think you he can argue that OOP has anything to say "
"about software distribution across nodes. You can still have Erlang actors "
"that run independently and send messages to each other without a network "
"between them. Any OTP application deployed on a single node effectively "
"works like that."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"I think he went a bit too far with this extrapolation. Even though I agree "
"it is a logical a fair one, it isn't evidently bad as he painted. I would be"
" fine working with a single-node OTP application and seeing someone call it "
"\"a *real* OOP program\"."
msgstr ""

msgid "[^the-language-of-the-system]: From 24:05 to 27:45."
msgstr ""

msgid "First class immutability"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"I agree with his view of languages moving towards the functional paradigm. "
"But I think you can narrow down the \"first-class immutability\" feature he "
"points out as present on modern functional programming languages to \"first-"
"class immutable data structures\"."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"I wouldn't categorize a language as \"supporting functional programming "
"style\" without a library for functional data structures it. By discipline "
"you can avoid side-effects, write pure functions as much as possible, and "
"pass functions as arguments around is almost every language these days, but "
"if when changing an element of a vector mutates things in-place, that is "
"still not functional programming."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"To avoid that, you end-up needing to make clones of objects to pass to a "
"function, using freezes or other workarounds. All those cases are when the "
"underlying mix of OOP and functional programming fail."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"There are some languages with third-party libraries that provide functional "
"data structures, like [immer](https://sinusoid.es/immer/) for C++, or "
"[ImmutableJS](https://immutable-js.github.io/immutable-js/) for JavaScript."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"But functional programming is more easily achievable in languages that have "
"them built-in, like Erlang, Elm and Clojure."
msgstr ""

msgid "Managed side-effects"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"His proposal of adopting managed side-effects as a first-class language "
"concept is really intriguing."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"I haven't worked with a language with managed side-effects at scale, and I "
"don't feel this is a problem with Clojure or Erlang. But is this me finding "
"a flaw in his argument or not acknowledging a benefit unknown to me? This is"
" a provocative question I ask myself."
msgstr ""

msgid "What about declarative programming?"
msgstr ""

msgid "Conclusion"
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"Beyond all Richard said, I also hear often bring up functional programming "
"when talking about utilizing all cores of a computer, and how FP can help "
"with that."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"Rich Hickey makes a great case for single-process FP on his famous talk "
"\"[Simple Made Easy](https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-"
"Easy/)\"."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"This is something you can achieve with a library, like "
"[Redux](https://redux.js.org/) for JavaScript or [re-"
"frame](https://github.com/Day8/re-frame) for Clojure."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"Also all FP languages with managed side-effects I know are statically-typed,"
" and all dynamically-typed FP languages I know don't have managed side-"
"effects baked in."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"In \"[Out of the Tar "
"Pit](http://curtclifton.net/papers/MoseleyMarks06a.pdf)\", B. Moseley and P."
" Marks go beyond his view of functional programming as the basis, and name a"
" possible \"functional relational programming\" as an even better solution. "
"They explicitly call out some flaws in most of the modern functional "
"programming languages, and instead pick declarative programming as an even "
"better starting paradigm."
msgstr ""

msgid ""
"If the next paradigm shift is towards functional programming, will the "
"following shift be towards declarative programming?"
msgstr ""

msgid "eu_categories: video review"
msgstr ""

#~ msgid "category: video review"
#~ msgstr ""

#~ msgid ""
#~ "This is something you can achieve with a library, like "
#~ "[Redux](https://redux.js.org/) for JavaScript or re-frame for Clojure."
#~ msgstr ""

#~ msgid ""
#~ "Also all languages with managed side-effects I know are statically-typed, "
#~ "and all dynamically-typed languages I know don't have managed side-effects "
#~ "baked in."
#~ msgstr ""

#~ msgid ""
#~ "\"[Out of the Tar Pit](http://curtclifton.net/papers/MoseleyMarks06a.pdf)\" "
#~ "by B. Moseley and P. Marks goes beyond his view of functional programming, "
#~ "and name a possible \"functional relational programming\" as an even better "
#~ "solution. They explicitly call out some flaws in most of the modern "
#~ "functional programming languages, and instead pick declarative programming "
#~ "as an even better starting paradigm."
#~ msgstr ""

#~ msgid ""
#~ "If functional programming is the next paradigm shift, is declarative "
#~ "programming the next next paradigm shift?"
#~ msgstr ""