Twist and perversion. Was: Software bugs aren't inevitable

[Jerzy Karczmarczuk]

Terry Hancock wrote:

/a few statements which seem to be there - apparently - just for the sake
of quarreling/

> The FP camp (apparently) wants to advance the claim that FP will *always*
> reduce bugs.  I find that very hard to believe.

Good.
Now go, and talk to some FP people before accusing them of being *so*
sectarian. Your supposition that they claim that FP is always better is
unjustified. Were I more aggressive, I would say: 'sheer nonsense'.
I would not say - as you did - a 'ludicrous sophistry', because it is
not ludicrous. Quite sad, in fact...

Your further posting, about twists and perversion of functional programming
makes me invite you to learn a bit more of FP. It won't harm you, and it
might raise in your spirit the question why in thousands of educational
establishment this programming style is considered good for beginners.
I might agree that thousands of teachers are more stupid than you, but that
they are all perverts, I believe not.

Anyway. In a further posting you comment the "psychological" aspect of
language choice in such a way:

> I said this, because an earlier poster had *dismissed* mere
> "psychological" reasons as unimportant, claiming that
> functional programming was superior on "technical" grounds.

1. I never said that FP was technically superior.
2. I never dismissed psychological reasons as unimportant.

Read it again, please.
Please, stop putting in other people mouths fake arguments, just to
have something to argue about, OK?


FP appeals to many. Well, *why* people who jump into Python from other
languages very often like functional constructs, and dislike the fact
that destructive methods return nothing?...



Jerzy Karczmarczuk