Sometimes I think I'm fully into Functional Programming, because coding and reasoning about code is easier with FP than keeping the overview over variable manipulations (and their correct sequence) in imperative programs. I'm really serious. For me, FP is easier.
Explaining like you are five? Not exactly. But:
Programming in Haskell for me is to transform an immutable input to an imutable output. Instead of doing destructive updates of mutable values, piece by piece, hoping I get to a consistent state. Holistic FP vs. atomistic imperative programming.
Easier for me.
As you see, I failed at explaining for 5-year olds, but I hope I could encourage you.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Like Ben Halpern recommended, Learn You A Haskell for Great Good! was a really good guide for me (and often still is).
Sometimes I think I'm fully into Functional Programming, because coding and reasoning about code is easier with FP than keeping the overview over variable manipulations (and their correct sequence) in imperative programs. I'm really serious. For me, FP is easier.
Explaining like you are five? Not exactly. But:
Programming in Haskell for me is to transform an immutable input to an imutable output. Instead of doing destructive updates of mutable values, piece by piece, hoping I get to a consistent state. Holistic FP vs. atomistic imperative programming.
Easier for me.
As you see, I failed at explaining for 5-year olds, but I hope I could encourage you.