[swift-evolution] SE-0066 Reaction

Vladimir.S svabox at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 09:21:29 CDT 2016

Support your opinion on 100%. IMO Swift is language that has *elements* of 
FP that help us to build our software, but it was not born to be Pure FP 
language like Haskel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purely_functional
And I believe will never be, as then we should implement Haskell's I/O 
system in Swift and other 'features'.

Do we need Haskel instead of Swift? I don't believe so.

On 28.04.2016 16:48, Andrey Tarantsov via swift-evolution wrote:
> Hey,
> I'm inserting these opinions into almost every FP discussion, for which
> I'm sorry, but I believe it's important to remind everyone that there's
> the rest of us who will run away from Swift if it becomes too FP-y.
>> One of the things that I have noticed over the last year or so of
>> working with Swift is a trend in the community of libriaries being
>> written for Swift towards some of these "system semantics" (i.e.,
>> functional paradigms) like applicatives and such.
> Just as an example of a different selection bias, I saw a couple of
> those, digged in for a little bit and then ran far, far away. I haven't
> seen any FP-related Swift libraries after that.
> I absolutely don't have an impression that Swift has any affinity
> towards being functional. To me, it embraces mutability and higher-level
> object design aspects (like protocols) while taking only the bits of FP
> that are actually useful (e.g. collection methods).
> I don't have any data, but I can bet that most software developers on
> iOS and Mac platforms welcome that, and don't really want the move
> towards FP.
> A.
> _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing
> list swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list