Search Results

Search found 6839 results on 274 pages for 'functional tests'.

Page 3/274 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Is Haskell's type system an obstacle to understanding functional programming?

    - by FarmBoy
    I'm studying Haskell for the purpose of understanding functional programming, with the expectation that I'll apply the insight that I gain in other languages (Groovy, Python, JavaScript mainly.) I choose Haskell because I had the impression that it is very purely functional, and wouldn't allow for any reliance on state. I did not choose to learn Haskell because I was interested in navigating an extremely rigid type system. My question is this: Is a strong type system a necessary by-product of an extremely pure functional language, or is this an unrelated design choice particular to Haskell? If it is the latter, I'm curious what would be the most purely functional language that is dynamically typed. I'm not particularly opposed to strong typing, it has its place, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it benefits me in this educational endeavor.

    Read the article

  • how a pure functional programming language manage without assignment statements?

    - by Gnijuohz
    When reading the famous SICP,I found the authors seem rather reluctant to introduce the assignment statement to Scheme in Chapter 3.I read the text and kind of understand why they feel so. As Scheme is the first functional programming language I ever know something about,I am kind of surprised that there are some functional programming languages(not Scheme of course) can do without assignments. Let use the example the book offers,the bank account example.If there is no assignment statement,how can this be done?How to change the balance variable?I ask so because I know there are some so-called pure functional languages out there and according to the Turing complete theory,this must can be done too. I learned C,Java,Python and use assignments a lot in every program I wrote.So it's really an eye-opening experience.I really hope someone can briefly explain how assignments are avoided in those functional programming languages and what profound impact(if any) it has on these languages. The example mentioned above is here: (define (make-withdraw balance) (lambda (amount) (if (>= balance amount) (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) balance) "Insufficient funds"))) This changed the balance by set!.To me it looks a lot like a class method to change the class member balance. As I said,I am not familiar with functional programming languages,so if I said something wrong about them,feel free to point out.

    Read the article

  • Is Haskell's type system an obstacle to understanding functional programming?

    - by Eric Wilson
    I'm studying Haskell for the purpose of understanding functional programming, with the expectation that I'll apply the insight that I gain in other languages (Groovy, Python, JavaScript mainly.) I choose Haskell because I had the impression that it is very purely functional, and wouldn't allow for any reliance on state. I did not choose to learn Haskell because I was interested in navigating an extremely rigid type system. My question is this: Is a strong type system a necessary by-product of an extremely pure functional language, or is this an unrelated design choice particular to Haskell? If it is the latter, I'm curious what would be the most purely functional language that is dynamically typed. I'm not particularly opposed to strong typing, it has its place, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it benefits me in this educational endeavor.

    Read the article

  • Scheme vs Haskell for an Introduction to Functional Programming?

    - by haziz
    I am comfortable with programming in C and C#, and will explore C++ in the future. I may be interested in exploring functional programming as a different programming paradigm. I am doing this for fun, my job does not involve computer programming, and am somewhat inspired by the use of functional programming, taught fairly early, in computer science courses in college. Lambda calculus is certainly beyond my mathematical abilities, but I think I can handle functional programming. Which of Haskell or Scheme would serve as a good intro to functional programming? I use emacs as my text editor and would like to be able to configure it more easily in the future which would entail learning Emacs Lisp. My understanding, however, is that Emacs Lisp is fairly different from Scheme and is also more procedural as opposed to functional. I would likely be using "The Little Schemer" book, which I have already bought, if I pursue Scheme (seems to me a little weird from my limited leafing through it). Or would use the "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" if I pursue Haskell. I would also watch the Intro to Haskell videos by Dr Erik Meijer on Channel 9. Any suggestions, feedback or input appreciated. Thanks. P.S. BTW I also have access to F# since I have Visual Studio 2010 which I use for C# development, but I don't think that should be my main criteria for selecting a language.

    Read the article

  • Are closures with side-effects considered "functional style"?

    - by Giorgio
    Many modern programming languages support some concept of closure, i.e. of a piece of code (a block or a function) that Can be treated as a value, and therefore stored in a variable, passed around to different parts of the code, be defined in one part of a program and invoked in a totally different part of the same program. Can capture variables from the context in which it is defined, and access them when it is later invoked (possibly in a totally different context). Here is an example of a closure written in Scala: def filterList(xs: List[Int], lowerBound: Int): List[Int] = xs.filter(x => x >= lowerBound) The function literal x => x >= lowerBound contains the free variable lowerBound, which is closed (bound) by the argument of the function filterList that has the same name. The closure is passed to the library method filter, which can invoke it repeatedly as a normal function. I have been reading a lot of questions and answers on this site and, as far as I understand, the term closure is often automatically associated with functional programming and functional programming style. The definition of function programming on wikipedia reads: In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. It emphasizes the application of functions, in contrast to the imperative programming style, which emphasizes changes in state. and further on [...] in functional code, the output value of a function depends only on the arguments that are input to the function [...]. Eliminating side effects can make it much easier to understand and predict the behavior of a program, which is one of the key motivations for the development of functional programming. On the other hand, many closure constructs provided by programming languages allow a closure to capture non-local variables and change them when the closure is invoked, thus producing a side effect on the environment in which they were defined. In this case, closures implement the first idea of functional programming (functions are first-class entities that can be moved around like other values) but neglect the second idea (avoiding side-effects). Is this use of closures with side effects considered functional style or are closures considered a more general construct that can be used both for a functional and a non-functional programming style? Is there any literature on this topic? IMPORTANT NOTE I am not questioning the usefulness of side-effects or of having closures with side effects. Also, I am not interested in a discussion about the advantages / disadvantages of closures with or without side effects. I am only interested to know if using such closures is still considered functional style by the proponent of functional programming or if, on the contrary, their use is discouraged when using a functional style.

    Read the article

  • Design in "mixed" languages: object oriented design or functional programming?

    - by dema80
    In the past few years, the languages I like to use are becoming more and more "functional". I now use languages that are a sort of "hybrid": C#, F#, Scala. I like to design my application using classes that correspond to the domain objects, and use functional features where this makes coding easier, more coincise and safer (especially when operating on collections or when passing functions). However the two worlds "clash" when coming to design patterns. The specific example I faced recently is the Observer pattern. I want a producer to notify some other code (the "consumers/observers", say a DB storage, a logger, and so on) when an item is created or changed. I initially did it "functionally" like this: producer.foo(item => { updateItemInDb(item); insertLog(item) }) // calls the function passed as argument as an item is processed But I'm now wondering if I should use a more "OO" approach: interface IItemObserver { onNotify(Item) } class DBObserver : IItemObserver ... class LogObserver: IItemObserver ... producer.addObserver(new DBObserver) producer.addObserver(new LogObserver) producer.foo() //calls observer in a loop Which are the pro and con of the two approach? I once heard a FP guru say that design patterns are there only because of the limitations of the language, and that's why there are so few in functional languages. Maybe this could be an example of it? EDIT: In my particular scenario I don't need it, but.. how would you implement removal and addition of "observers" in the functional way? (I.e. how would you implement all the functionalities in the pattern?) Just passing a new function, for example?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing in QTestLib - running single test / tests in class / all tests

    - by Dave
    I'm just starting to use QTestLib. I have gone through the manual and tutorial. Although I understand how to create tests, I'm just not getting how to make those tests convenient to run. My unit test background is NUnit and MSTest. In those environments, it was trivial (using a GUI, at least) to alternate between running a single test, or all tests in a single test class, or all tests in the entire project, just by clicking the right button. All I'm seeing in QTestLib is either you use the QTEST_MAIN macro to run the tests in a single class, then compile and test each file separately; or use QTest::qExec() in main() to define which objects to test, and then manually change that and recompile when you want to add/remove test classes. I'm sure I'm missing something. I'd like to be able to easily: Run a single test method Run the tests in an entire class Run all tests Any of those would call the appropriate setup / teardown functions.

    Read the article

  • Can someone clarify what this Joel On Software quote means: (functional programs have no side effect

    - by Bob
    I was reading Joel On Software today and ran across this quote: Without understanding functional programming, you can't invent MapReduce, the algorithm that makes Google so massively scalable. The terms Map and Reduce come from Lisp and functional programming. MapReduce is, in retrospect, obvious to anyone who remembers from their 6.001-equivalent programming class that purely functional programs have no side effects and are thus trivially parallelizable. What does he mean when he says functional programs have no side effects? And how does this make parallelizing trivial?

    Read the article

  • Should functional programming be taught before imperative programming?

    - by Zifre
    It seems to me that functional programming is a great thing. It eliminates state and makes it much easier to automatically make code run in parallel. Many programmers who were first taught imperative programming styles find it very difficult to learn functional programming, because it is so different. I began to wonder if programmers who were taught functional programming first would find it hard to begin imperative programming. It seems like it would not be as hard as the other way around, so I thought it would be a good thing if more programmers were taught functional programming first. So, my question is, should functional programming be taught in school before imperative, and if so, why is it not more common to start with it?

    Read the article

  • What is the need of functional programming?

    - by Lazer
    I have read about functional programming which is stateless, gives the same result invocation after invocation, about closures and other related concepts. I still feel that I have very little idea what these things are about. Thinking about this, right now, I feel complete in C, C++, and Java. Any programming problem and I start thinking in one of these languages. So, I never feel and understand the need for functional languages. A good starting point therefore would be to try to understand some things that are not possible in imperative languages but possible in functional languages. I feel unless I understand where exactly functional languages fit inside my already complete world of C, C++ and Java, I would never be able to appreciate and understand them. So, can somebody help me understand the real need for functional programming? Where exactly do they fit in?

    Read the article

  • Are we in a functional programming fad?

    - by TraumaPony
    I use both functional and imperative languages daily, and it's rather amusing to see the surge of adoption of functional languages from both sides of the fence. It strikes me, however, that it looks rather like a fad. Do you think that it's a fad? I know the reasons for using functional languages at times and imperative languages in others, but do you really think that this trend will continue due to the cliched "many-core" revolution that has been only "18 months from now" since 2004 (sort of like communism's Radiant Future), or do you think that it's only temporary; a fascination of the mainstream developer that will be quickly replaced by the next shiny idea, like Web 3.0 or GPGPU? Note, that I'm not trying to start a flamewar or anything (sorry if it sounds bitter), I'm just curious as to whether people will think functional or functional/imperative languages will become mainstream. Edit: By mainstream, I mean, equal number of programmers to say, Python, Java, C#, etc

    Read the article

  • Does learning a functional language make a better OOP programmer?

    - by GavinH
    As a Java/C#/C++ programmer I hear a lot of talk about functional languages, but have never found a need to learn one. I've also heard that the higher level of thinking introduced in functional languages makes you a better OOP/procedural language programmer. Can anyone confirm this? In what ways does it improve your programming skills? What is a good choice of language to learn with the goal of improving skills in a less sophisticated language?

    Read the article

  • Run unit tests in Jenkins / Hudson in automated fashion from dev to build server

    - by Kevin Donde
    We are currently running a Jenkins (Hudson) CI server to build and package our .net web projects and database projects. Everything is working great but I want to start writing unit tests and then only passing the build if the unit tests pass. We are using the built in msbuild task to build the web project. With the following arguments ... MsBuild Version .NET 4.0 MsBuild Build File ./WebProjectFolder/WebProject.csproj Command Line Arguments ./target:Rebuild /p:Configuration=Release;DeployOnBuild=True;PackageLocation=".\obj\Release\WebProject.zip";PackageAsSingleFile=True We need to run automated tests over our code that run automatically when we build on our machines (post build event possibly) but also run when Jenkins does a build for that project. If you run it like this it doesn't build the unit tests project because the web project doesn't reference the test project. The test project would reference the web project but I'm pretty sure that would be butchering our automated builds as they exist primarily to build and package our deployments. Running these tests should be a step in that automated build and package process. Options ... Create two Jenkins jobs. one to run the tests ... if the tests pass another build is triggered which builds and packages the web project. Put the post build event on the test project. Build the solution instead of the project (make sure the solution contains the required tests) and put post build events on any test projects that would run the nunit console to run the tests. Then use the command line to copy all the required files from each of the bin and content directories into a package. Just build the test project in jenkins instead of the web project in jenkins. The test project would reference the web project (depending on what you're testing) and build it. Problems ... There's two jobs and not one. Two things to debug not one. One to see if the tests passed and one to build and compile the web project. The tests could pass but the build could fail if its something that isn't used by what you're testing ... This requires us to know exactly what goes into the build. Right now msbuild does it all for us. If you have multiple teams working on a project everytime an extra folder is created you have to worry about the possibly brittle command line statements. This seems like a corruption of our main purpose here. The tests should be a step in this process not the overriding most important thing in this process. I'm also not 100% sure that a triggered build is the same as a normal build does it do all the same things as a normal build. Move all the correct files in the same way move them all into the same directories etc. Initial problem. We want to run our tests whenever our main project is built. But adding a post build event to the web project that runs against the test project doesn't work because the web project doesn't reference the test project and won't trigger a build of this project. I could go on ... but that's enough ... We've spent about a week trying to make this work nicely but haven't succeeded. Feel free to edit this if you feel you can get a better response ...

    Read the article

  • Splitting a test to a set of smaller tests

    - by mkorpela
    I want to be able to split a big test to smaller tests so that when the smaller tests pass they imply that the big test would also pass (so there is no reason to run the original big test). I want to do this because smaller tests usually take less time, less effort and are less fragile. I would like to know if there are test design patterns or verification tools that can help me to achieve this test splitting in a robust way. I fear that the connection between the smaller tests and the original test is lost when someone changes something in the set of smaller tests. Another fear is that the set of smaller tests doesn't really cover the big test. An example of what I am aiming at: //Class under test class A { public void setB(B b){ this.b = b; } public Output process(Input i){ return b.process(doMyProcessing(i)); } private InputFromA doMyProcessing(Input i){ .. } .. } //Another class under test class B { public Output process(InputFromA i){ .. } .. } //The Big Test @Test public void theBigTest(){ A systemUnderTest = createSystemUnderTest(); // <-- expect that this is expensive Input i = createInput(); Output o = systemUnderTest.process(i); // <-- .. or expect that this is expensive assertEquals(o, expectedOutput()); } //The splitted tests @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest1(){ // this method is a bit too long but its just an example.. Input i = createInput(); InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B b = mock(B.class); when(b.process(x)).thenReturn(expected); A classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassA(); classUnderTest.setB(b); Output o = classUnderTest.process(i); assertEquals(o, expected); verify(b).process(x); verifyNoMoreInteractions(b); } @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest2(){ InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassB(); Output o = classUnderTest.process(x); assertEquals(o, expected); }

    Read the article

  • What are some techniques I can use to refactor Object Oriented code into Functional code?

    - by tieTYT
    I've spent about 20-40 hours developing part of a game using JavaScript and HTML5 canvas. When I started I had no idea what I was doing. So it started as a proof of concept and is coming along nicely now, but it has no automated tests. The game is starting to become complex enough that it could benefit from some automated testing, but it seems tough to do because the code depends on mutating global state. I'd like to refactor the whole thing using Underscore.js, a functional programming library for JavaScript. Part of me thinks I should just start from scratch using a Functional Programming style and testing. But, I think refactoring the imperative code into declarative code might be a better learning experience and a safer way to get to my current state of functionality. Problem is, I know what I want my code to look like in the end, but I don't know how to turn my current code into it. I'm hoping some people here could give me some tips a la the Refactoring book and Working Effectively With Legacy Code. For example, as a first step I'm thinking about "banning" global state. Take every function that uses a global variable and pass it in as a parameter instead. Next step may be to "ban" mutation, and to always return a new object. Any advice would be appreciated. I've never taken OO code and refactored it into Functional code before.

    Read the article

  • Why don't xUnit frameworks allow tests to run in parallel?

    - by Xavier Nodet
    Do you know of any xUnit framework that allows to run tests in parallel, to make use of multiple cores in today's machine? I don't... If none (or so few) of them does it, maybe there is a reason... Is it that tests are usually so quick that people simply don't feel the need to paralellize them? Is there something deeper that precludes distributing (at least some of) the tests over multiple threads? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Business Case for investing time developing Stubs and BizUnit Tests

    - by charlie.mott
    I was recently in a position where I had to justify why effort should be spent developing Stubbed Integration Tests for BizTalk solutions. These tests are usually developed using the BizUnit framework. I assumed that most seasoned BizTalk developers would consider this best practice. Even though Microsoft suggest use of BizUnit on MSDN, I've not found a single site listing the justifications for investing time writing stubs and BizUnit tests. Stubs Stubs should be developed to isolate your development team from external dependencies. This is described by Michael Stephenson here. Failing to do this can result in the following problems: In contract-first scenarios, the external system interface will have been defined.  But the interface may not have been setup or even developed yet for the BizTalk developers to work with. By the time you open the target location to see the data BizTalk has sent, it may have been swept away. If you are relying on the UI of the target system to see the data BizTalk has sent, what do you do if it fails to arrive? It may take time for the data to be processed or it may be scheduled to be processed later. Learning how to use the source\target systems and investigations into where things go wrong in these systems will slow down the BizTalk development effort. By the time the data is visible in a UI it may have undergone further transformations. In larger development teams working together, do you all use the same source and target instances. How do you know which data was created by whose tests? How do you know which event log error message are whose?  Another developer may have “cleaned up” your data. It is harder to write BizUnit tests that clean up the data\logs after each test run. What if your B2B partners' source or target system cannot support the sort of testing you want to do. They may not even have a development or test instance that you can work with. Their single test instance may be used by the SIT\UAT teams. There may be licencing costs of setting up an instances of the external system. The stubs I like to use are generic stubs that can accept\return any message type.  Usually I need to create one per protocol. They should be driven by BizUnit steps to: validates the data received; and select a response messages (or error response). Once built, they can be re-used for many integration tests and from project to project. I’m not saying that developers should never test against a real instance.  Every so often, you still need to connect to real developer or test instances of the source and target endpoints\services. The interface developers may ask you to send them some data to see if everything still works.  Or you might want some messages sent to BizTalk to get confidence that everything still works beyond BizTalk. Tests Automated “Stubbed Integration Tests” are usually built using the BizUnit framework. These facilitate testing of the entire integration process from source stub to target stub. It will ensure that all of the BizTalk components are configured together correctly to meet all the requirements. More fine grained unit testing of individual BizTalk components is still encouraged.  But BizUnit provides much the easiest way to test some components types (e.g. Orchestrations). Using BizUnit with the Behaviour Driven Development approach described by Mike Stephenson delivers the following benefits: source: http://biztalkbddsample.codeplex.com – Video 1. Requirements can be easily defined using Given/When/Then Requirements are close to the code so easier to manage as features and scenarios Requirements are defined in domain language The feature files can be used as part of the documentation The documentation is accurate to the build of code and can be published with a release The scenarios are effective to document the scenarios and are not over excessive The scenarios are maintained with the code There’s an abstraction between the intention and implementation of tests making them easier to understand The requirements drive the testing These same tests can also be used to drive load testing as described here. If you don't do this ... If you don't follow the above “Stubbed Integration Tests” approach, the developer will need to manually trigger the tests. This has the following risks: Developers are unlikely to check all the scenarios each time and all the expected conditions each time. After the developer leaves, these manual test steps may be lost. What test scenarios are there?  What test messages did they use for each scenario? There is no mechanism to prove adequate test coverage. A test team may attempt to automate integration test scenarios in a test environment through the triggering of tests from a source system UI. If this is a replacement for BizUnit tests, then this carries the following risks: It moves the tests downstream, so problems will be found later in the process. Testers may not check all the expected conditions within the BizTalk infrastructure such as: event logs, suspended messages, etc. These automated tests may also get in the way of manual tests run on these environments.

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same ruby file or in separeted ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same Ruby file or in separated Ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same Ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Functional Programming - Lots of emphasis on recursion, why?

    - by peakit
    I am getting introduced to Functional Programming [FP] (using Scala). One thing that is coming out from my initial learnings is that FPs rely heavily on recursion. And also it seems like, in pure FPs the only way to do iterative stuff is by writing recursive functions. And because of the heavy usage of recursion seems the next thing that FPs had to worry about were StackoverflowExceptions typically due to long winding recursive calls. This was tackled by introducing some optimizations (tail recursion related optimizations in maintenance of stackframes and @tailrec annotation from Scala v2.8 onwards) Can someone please enlighten me why recursion is so important to functional programming paradigm? Is there something in the specifications of functional programming languages which gets "violated" if we do stuff iteratively? If yes, then I am keen to know that as well. PS: Note that I am newbie to functional programming so feel free to point me to existing resources if they explain/answer my question. Also I do understand that Scala in particular provides support for doing iterative stuff as well.

    Read the article

  • Why hasn't functional programming taken over yet?

    - by pankrax
    I've read some texts about declarative/functional programming (languages), tried out Haskell as well as written one myself. From what I've seen, functional programming has several advantages over the classical imperative style: Stateless programs; No side effects Concurrency; Plays extremely nice with the rising multi-core technology Programs are usually shorter and in some cases easier to read Productivity goes up (example: Erlang) Imperative programming is a very old paradigm (as far as I know) and possibly not suitable for the 21st century Why are companies using or programs written in functional languages still so "rare"? Why, when looking at the advantages of functional programming, are we still using imperative programming languages? Maybe it was too early for it in 1990, but today?

    Read the article

  • What Functional features are worth a little OOP confusion for the benefits they bring?

    - by bonomo
    After learning functional programming in Haskell and F#, the OOP paradigm seems ass-backwards with classes, interfaces, objects. Which aspects of FP can I bring to work that my co-workers can understand? Are any FP styles worth talking to my boss about retraining my team so that we can use them? Possible aspects of FP: Immutability Partial Application and Currying First Class Functions (function pointers / Functional Objects / Strategy Pattern) Lazy Evaluation (and Monads) Pure Functions (no side effects) Expressions (vs. Statements - each line of code produces a value instead of, or in addition to causing side effects) Recursion Pattern Matching Is it a free-for-all where we can do whatever the programming language supports to the limit that language supports it? Or is there a better guideline?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >