Maybe most programmers who bother to look up different paradigms. My experience is that most programmers overall aren't even aware of different paradigms, let alone that things could be better: they're taught what they're taught in school or at home and don't move beyond. I've heard the phrase "Well if you know C++ you know it all" at least three times.
You must have never done any meta-programming in C++ ;). It's pretty much a functional language.
Also, STL provides some infrastructure for FP-like programming (defining functors, argument binding, and providing map/fold-like transformations). But given that C++98 didn't provide lambda functions, it was all a bit too painful.
> You must have never done any meta-programming in C++ ;). It's pretty much a functional language.
I've done enough to scream in terror and run towards a Lisp should anyone suggest such an awful thing! I think there's a huge, huge gap between your 'pretty much a functional language' and standard 'a functional language' [with proper meta-programming capabilities].
In haskell, the syntax is so nice that is easily readable, and it doesn't get in your way.
Unless you want if-then-else in the do notation (yes, I know that there is a GHC extension for this), disagree with its whitespace rules, or like record syntax (which subsequently pollutes your namespace).
Also, point-free style is nice, but it is easily and often abused, leading to unreadable code.
Yeah, but the syntax and the verbosity hides your aim.
Many people would argue the same of Haskell. So much semantics are encoded in the particular operators, monads, functors, monad transformers, arrows being used, that they are hidden from plain sight.
> Also, point-free style is nice, but it is easily and often abused, leading to unreadable code.
That's why it's called point-less style. It's too seductive.
> Many people would argue the same of Haskell. So much semantics are encoded in the particular operators, monads, functors, monad transformers, arrows being used, that they are hidden from plain sight.
In a sense. But at least Haskell is parseable. And overloading is only done in a very systematic manner. So if something fishy's going on, you at least see strange symbols you haven't seen before.
