You’re high on mushrooms in the Viking age, the gods are all around you

  • 0 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 12th, 2025

help-circle


  • It’s good to have some experience with them even just to know what tools may work best for a situation. I’d suggest something close to what you already know, C# -> F#, java -> clojure or scala, declaritive -> ML or Haskell, etc. dynamic vs static and strong vs weak typing systems can have a big impact on how you think about programs. Debuggers vs REPLs vs compiler warnings vs generic logs are all going to be different too on top of the paradigm like functional that will have different approaches. Minimizing the other differences makes it easier to focus on and learn the functional stuff.

    If you look at samples of a bunch and none are clicking I’d start with any that has dynamic typing, REPL style like common lisp, scheme, elixir. They are simple to get started with coming from python dynamic typing and options for interpreter & compiled, and you can add dependency management and interop and other stuff on top later. RDMS SQL is generally a static typed, declaritive style language. If you want a similar functional language look at ML, Haskell. But even in functional languages you’ll usually use a library or driver or language feature specifically for interacting with RDMS, you may use pandas in python and datomic in clojure.

    The big things to focus on are understanding common idioms like combining functions in call chains using basic functions map, reduce, & filter, etc, creating new objects with charges instead of changing in place (non mutable), and higher order functions/function composition that lack of mutability restriction allows.








  • whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyzYou have to be orchidding me!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    There’s multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it’s trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn’t really exist.

    species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, distinct boundaries between populations:

    abstract picture with rows of distinct colors with clear boundaries

    But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:

    abstract picture with a few colors overlapping each other and areas with no color

    You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there’ll always be some weird edges that don’t really fit, like asexual reproducers for example.