reinman

Yeah this article takes some strange positions

Functions are at best glorified cat containers. I can write a script and never use a function. I can write SQL and never use a function. The Turing tape never mentions "functions" So functions are hardly the bedrock of computing that some claim it is

Categories specifically contain "morphisms". Then FP completely gets category theory wrong by trying to claim that functions are immutable. Which is it?

Instead of chasing strawmen, why not address some of the issues raised in the article directly? Code reuse? Integration? Use of convergence hardware? Interactivity?

Cat concepts are a bit language agnostic.

Forth is a tad exotic. Multix lets you use ordinary Typescript/Node

Tight budget lol

It was a poke at a very smart but also very annoying FP troll @dibblego

For a while, FP noobs were terrorized by a bunch of FP thugs on Twitter

Yes, there is a long-standing debate in categories about this "reduction" problem but that is mostly theoretical

In practice, you only need to break down enough to interface w existing APIs

The morphisms are controlled by the crafting system, which is really a higher order type system

No you don't need to achieve god-like powers any more than GitHub is the source of all code on the planet (it doesn't have to be all or nothing).

Even the crafting rules themselves contain FP chains. In my real world work, I use a mix of crafting, FP chains and old school functions.

Yes anything that says "Functional Programming" in the title tends to attract a certain type of developer tackling a certain type of problem, usually program verification etc.

Not mainstream programming for sure

Crafting is particularly useful in testing

For example, suppose you just need to isolate and test a function but you won't want to manually write a test harness

A crafting system could build the upstream dependencies and then deliver you the results - no code changes needed