> Railway Oriented Programming
This term needs to die.
I have lost count of how many times people have asked me, on my language-ext [1] issues pages, if the library supports "Railway Oriented Programming". The documentation is clear, it is an FP library with many monads, functors, etc.
Inventing new terminology for existing concepts just creates even more confusion.
Creating completely new terminology for existing concepts just because you don't like the words is utterly baffling. Learn them. If you're going to teach monads then by all means use railways as an analogy, but don't call it "Railway Oriented Programming", you are just misleading the reader and not helping them communicate with others in the FP community.
Did anyone know what 'polymorphism' was when they first encountered OOP? No, they learned what it meant. Learn what 'monad' means, learn what 'functor' means, learn what 'applicative' means. You'll be enlightened.
OOP people: not everything needs to be 'oriented' ;-)
[1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/
This term needs to die.
I have lost count of how many times people have asked me, on my language-ext [1] issues pages, if the library supports "Railway Oriented Programming". The documentation is clear, it is an FP library with many monads, functors, etc.
Inventing new terminology for existing concepts just creates even more confusion.
Creating completely new terminology for existing concepts just because you don't like the words is utterly baffling. Learn them. If you're going to teach monads then by all means use railways as an analogy, but don't call it "Railway Oriented Programming", you are just misleading the reader and not helping them communicate with others in the FP community.
Did anyone know what 'polymorphism' was when they first encountered OOP? No, they learned what it meant. Learn what 'monad' means, learn what 'functor' means, learn what 'applicative' means. You'll be enlightened.
OOP people: not everything needs to be 'oriented' ;-)
[1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/