No you're not dumb at all. The first time I watched it was hard for me too to understand. It took me time and rewatch, and to let these ideas live somewhere in my head to get used to it. I recommand you to watch its conference: are we there yet? It's a good one to introduce what he's talking about,the conceptual frame
Try not to work with references but start passing data by value. Return by value tuples from functions. Do not create methods that operate on objects by reference. Use structs. Learn more about data flow programming. Even wiki article is pretty good.
"We don't do that on the web. You ask for the page, you get the whole page. You get the entire value." That hasn't been true for some time. The concept of "web pages" is pretty much dead. From Github, TH-cam, search engines, down to the smallest blog, there is no "page", there is only scaffolding and hundreds/thousands of micro requests interfacing through multiple programming languages to project an approximation of a final result that may or may not be relevant, and that's not even counting the additional injected third-party content and region/language/device-specific mutations. Immutable value? Far from it, I can't so much as read an API function descriptor on Microsoft via a known URL without it being forcibly translated into an incorrect spoken language because of my IP address.
This is not about practical programming. It is about everyone hugging their favourite paradigm and sobbing hysterically if anyone does anything that contradicts their paradigm. In real programming every paradigm is broken, violated and circumvented, just because there is an easier way to solve the problem.
It’s my opinion, but I think you’re failing to appreciate how old this talk is. At the time, FP was considered interesting but “not fit for production” in many places. In the intervening time, the change in essentially all major programming languages towards immutability, value-based concurrency, and scalability via composition have all borne out that Rich was exactly right.
To the contrary, this is precisely about practical programming, and not at all about "paradigm for paradigm's sake" or any such thing. Furthermore, it's about how to do things so that it's easier to solve problems, and how to prevent various misguided practices (including "paradigms") from making things needlessly complex and complicated.
28:45 OOP offers reusability in comparison to Procedural programming, bot not in comparison to Functional Programming. in comparison to FP, OOP offers higher speed. what a sly peddler of functional paradigm😅, exposing "lies" his first example of what "IT" is - is also confusing: the word "Information" in "IT" can be about a place, e.g.: a basket in a shop can be represented by a "place", in which you "add" products - it is "information", you don't have to represent it as a _"copy of the previous state of the basket with +1 product"_ , in order for it to be "facts". he gives an impression of an advertiser, doing sophistry, to push his product by all means. not the best way of presenting a great thing which functional programming is
Not at all. A basket where you can add products is a place, it is not a value or a fact. A value or a fact would be 'a basket with 4 products', 'a basket with 16 products', 'a basket with 10 products' etc. Contrary to that a 'basket where you add products' is just a 'basket with I don't know how many products', which is kind of worthless. That is exactly his point.
you add products to your basket. But at some specific time, when you picked up the basket, it probably was empty. You cann put stuff into your basket, and take them out, but during that events time also has moved forward. After you have put 10 items in your basket. Does it has affect the past and was your basket always full with all your items? No. When you picked it up, it was empty. This is a fact that never will change.
Good talk
I maybe too dumb for this talk, didn't understand most of it
No you're not dumb at all. The first time I watched it was hard for me too to understand. It took me time and rewatch, and to let these ideas live somewhere in my head to get used to it. I recommand you to watch its conference: are we there yet? It's a good one to introduce what he's talking about,the conceptual frame
@@Galileo51Galilei thankyou for the suggestion, I will add it to my watchlist. Thanks again, cheers :)
Try not to work with references but start passing data by value. Return by value tuples from functions. Do not create methods that operate on objects by reference. Use structs. Learn more about data flow programming. Even wiki article is pretty good.
A fact is some information that has been proven to be true, NOT a place.
Facts don't change.
"We don't do that on the web. You ask for the page, you get the whole page. You get the entire value." That hasn't been true for some time. The concept of "web pages" is pretty much dead. From Github, TH-cam, search engines, down to the smallest blog, there is no "page", there is only scaffolding and hundreds/thousands of micro requests interfacing through multiple programming languages to project an approximation of a final result that may or may not be relevant, and that's not even counting the additional injected third-party content and region/language/device-specific mutations. Immutable value? Far from it, I can't so much as read an API function descriptor on Microsoft via a known URL without it being forcibly translated into an incorrect spoken language because of my IP address.
A lot of these talks by Rich Hickey are > decade old so I'd check when this one is from for historical context.
Yes, and that is a VERY BAD state of affairs.
This is not about practical programming. It is about everyone hugging their favourite paradigm and sobbing hysterically if anyone does anything that contradicts their paradigm. In real programming every paradigm is broken, violated and circumvented, just because there is an easier way to solve the problem.
It’s my opinion, but I think you’re failing to appreciate how old this talk is. At the time, FP was considered interesting but “not fit for production” in many places. In the intervening time, the change in essentially all major programming languages towards immutability, value-based concurrency, and scalability via composition have all borne out that Rich was exactly right.
To the contrary, this is precisely about practical programming, and not at all about "paradigm for paradigm's sake" or any such thing. Furthermore, it's about how to do things so that it's easier to solve problems, and how to prevent various misguided practices (including "paradigms") from making things needlessly complex and complicated.
28:45 OOP offers reusability in comparison to Procedural programming, bot not in comparison to Functional Programming. in comparison to FP, OOP offers higher speed.
what a sly peddler of functional paradigm😅, exposing "lies"
his first example of what "IT" is - is also confusing: the word "Information" in "IT" can be about a place, e.g.: a basket in a shop can be represented by a "place", in which you "add" products - it is "information", you don't have to represent it as a _"copy of the previous state of the basket with +1 product"_ , in order for it to be "facts".
he gives an impression of an advertiser, doing sophistry, to push his product by all means. not the best way of presenting a great thing which functional programming is
Not at all. A basket where you can add products is a place, it is not a value or a fact. A value or a fact would be 'a basket with 4 products', 'a basket with 16 products', 'a basket with 10 products' etc. Contrary to that a 'basket where you add products' is just a 'basket with I don't know how many products', which is kind of worthless. That is exactly his point.
you add products to your basket. But at some specific time, when you picked up the basket, it probably was empty. You cann put stuff into your basket, and take them out, but during that events time also has moved forward. After you have put 10 items in your basket. Does it has affect the past and was your basket always full with all your items? No. When you picked it up, it was empty. This is a fact that never will change.