The purest coding style, where bugs are near impossible 

So true

IKR? The Doodley of programming. Even the chill voice is similar

Which software are you using Transitions look awesome 😍

Damn, I love the Buster Sword with materia 😂

Simply amazing

In contrast, when you want to refactor things, you might wind up having to change a whole bunch of things that are unrelated to the actual change, especially if your domain isn't something you could consider functional. Imagine a highly complex set of calculations about some business you're supporting, and now Marketing wants you to (say) change how long customer responses take way down at the bottom of the stack depending on how much money the customer spent last month. Now you have to pass that data through every level down to the bottom where you need it, and in every place you call that bottom function of deciding how long something will take. The alternative is to pass around an entire blob of everything about the customer, just in case you need some of it for a specific calculation somewhere, at which point you still have to find all references to it as well as handle returning new values back up the stack when you change it. Doing a functional approach to an OO problem makes refactoring as hard as doing a simulating an OO approach in the middle of functional code.

@@darrennew8211 it is sufficient to have a single data type that you pass around, you don’t need to populate it with everything you might possibly need, since adding more things to it only requires changing the place its constructed and the type definition. if you really need it to be globally changed immediately from deep in a branch (it’s probably a design issue but) you can always just put in a mutable reference for that specific value (and thus breaking purity). yes, it’s an annoying refactor to make, but it’s mechanical and you can just follow what the compiler tells you and be confident that it’s still working as expected this is not an issue i encounter regularly though, what is the context where you have ran into it when writing FP code? if you use the standard pattern of Elm code for example, what you’re mentioning is a complete non-issue, since there all state goes through a global function and you can just add the extra state you need at the appropriate location and it will be propagated along as needed by the code you have already written

@@asdfghyter I think adding all widely-distributed state to a global structure for an entire multi-million-loc program would probably be problematic without better support. I've never had the pleasure of working on a megaline program in a purely functional language, but my brain has problems dealing with pure functional once it gets above about five thousand lines. It sounds like you're basically saying "pass a pointer to the entire memory of the program around, and you can fix the problems with functional programming." :-)

​@@darrennew8211 the idea of elm-style loop is that you have a tree structure with state that is relevant to different parts of the program, then when you enter a part of the program, you extract that part. you can also have some data that is relevant to all of the program. in order to change components of the state that is not yours, you return a message that tells the main loop to update that data. another solution that introduces some more impurity is to use erlang-style message passing between components. that way each component is still internally pure, but they can send messages to each other and get mutable state that way. Anyways, the thing you are describing sounds to me like it would be a problem even in OO languages, since you still need some way to have a reference to some way to find the data you need. How would you solve it in an OO-way? It's probably possible to solve it in a similar way for FP programs.

@@pcap8810 My point is that if you have a routine that you suddenly need to have access to something to calculate a result that you never needed access to before, you might have to find all the places you call that thing and pass the new required information down the stack. Doubly-sucks if you suddenly need something like access to a database in a function you call from lots of places. That was always my problem with FP - you wind up with one seemingly simple change ("account for X in the calculation for Y") that requires changing dozens of places in the code. Using FP where OOP or procedural (or ECS or whatever) is more appropriate leads to those kinds of problems, IME. I'll grant that I haven't had a whole lot of experience in that, nor have I worked with people who have had a whole lot of experience in that.

Yeah, it stopped playing midway for me, haha! Thanks for everything you're doing, I'm learning a lot from your work!

Pin this comment xD

I was hoping that you will explain monads in this version. Was disappointed. Well... maybe it's too hard to explain them in one short segment.

it's completely worth watching the video over and over cus it's that good

@@ProBarokis Monads would need their own video I think

Also reminds me a bit of scruffy

Wow this describes my perception of this video so well. Amazing content!

Both 3blues1brown and fireship are excellent teachers and presenters. Fireship is like a human google AI summary of relevant subjects. How that guy is able to digest so many subjects is amazing.

But in the fireship that I know there is much more sarcasm

Sorry, I can't agree. 3blue1brown's animations graphically illustrate complex relationships and make seemingly invisible patterns comprehensible. (Even if Grant does use those "Pi" characters; they are stand-ins for *us* . They are confused or perplexed by or questioning things that *we* should be confused by....and that Grant is about to explain.) I didn't get any of that from Coderized's "coding style" video. I don't know much about this topic and I didn't come away having learned anything. This is more a *review* video for those that already *know* these styles and differences, and might need a refresher, or see them brought together in one place. So maybe it succeeds at that. I would prefer some actual code examples shown side-by-side that illustrate how each approach (or language) handles an important feature, and then the examples dissected to show the pros and cons of each approach. (Other commenters made this same point, and there *are* videos out there that do just that.) Instead (and this is all too common) the animations here are little more than "eye-candy" to fill the screen during the narration. At times you could close your eyes and not miss anything, because this is no real information on the screen. At about 1:50 he does show something technical, and I had my hopes up. But then it's soon back to cutesy and meaningless animations that contribute nothing as he confusingly discussed closures. (And the proof of that is that he later went back and re-edit the video with additional material to try and fill in the gaps.) With Grant's videos (3Blue1brown), I almost always want to know more about the topic, and am inspired to seek further. Often I am so captivated that I wind up binge watching more of his videos. Here, with Coderized, I feel cheated that the video is over and I didn't learn anything. I *am* inspired to learn more about this topic, just not via this channel.

Well, every paradigm can have good or bad code; you can never have a *bugless* paradigm or bugless language (the bug is created by the user, afterall). The title is just meant to be sensational

As long as you code in dark mode, it wont attract any bugs.

Short version: Because if the entire code is stateless and immutable, then the entire code can be represented by mathematical functions which then can be used to compare against the specs and to even automatically prove properties. Long version: Say you have to implement a traffic light, and need to prove that at under no circumstance, two perpendicular lights will both signal a green light. In imperative programming QA and testing are the state of the art approach. But those are probabilistic: unless you have a testcase for each and every possible input, for each and every possible program state, tests are only evidence but never a full proof. Even if you just have two 64bit input variables, that means having 2^128 (~3.4e38) testcases for a full proof. This problem is known as "state space explosion". In order to reduce it you need to involve semantics definitions of the programming language and because of side effects those can get pretty nasty pretty fast. In functional programming you can just prove each function individually, since there are no side effects. So all you need to do is show that the traffic-light output function is not capable of showing green lights for two perpendicular lights for a range of inputs. Then you show the arguments are indeed in that range, by showing the previous function's output is in that range. Rinse and repeat until you're left with constants and user input. It's just so counter-intuitive to think functional. In the famous cooking recipe analogy to an algorithm, it would be as describing cooked spaghetti as a series of transformations on raw noodles and water: Functional: cook_spaghetti( spaghetti, add_salt( boil(water) ) ) Imperative: 1. take water 2. boil water 3. add salt 4. add spaghetti 5. cook spaghetti IMO the imperative list of commands is just so quick to write and cheap to develop that it's hard to justify higher development cost. Unless you're sending stuff to space or write safety critical software, tests will do just fine and will be much cheaper. However there are some uses outside that space: when you're dealing with lots of concurrent events, handling everything in imperative event handlers is a nightmare to maintain. Observables ala Reactive UI have been a godsend in that regard.

@@powertomato It’s not really about proving that the programs are correct. No one got the time to write formal proofs. It’s just that stateless programs are in general easier to reason about. You don’t have to worry about which order you call X() and Y(). If you can call both, then both are safe to use. When programming with states there’s a risk calling Y() before X() cause trouble, because the programmer didn’t consider this possibility. Suddenly you need to reason about which order things are done. But this is just one type of bug. Stateless programs are still subject to other types of bugs.

Appreciated 💜

I think this is very interesting. Cause while making an adder you try your best to derive logic from binary inputs such as 0b1 for example then 0b10. You want to combine those inputs in an and gate to get 0b11 for individual bits. So then you start creating an equation to explain what each logic gate could be doing. And you can use that example as 0b1+0b1==0b10 or 0b1 and 0b1 == 0b10. With xor gates you simply have the even numbers and 0 and you can think of it as a Table or index in which the bits have to equate to. Which is why you create if and then functions. Making it a more declarative type of mathematical language. Just it uses symbols for the if and then functions. Which means you could also do ⟹ [{|0b1|}] to represent then true. Meaning if the function is true then it outputs 0b1. It also uses lim(n) as a function since setting the limit would be important for 8 bit input counters or adders. Think of it as similar to boolean algebra but with if and then statements and a limit function to have a limit bit integer. It's also structured so that the bit's are represented clearly and so that only with the prefix 0b it can indicate as binary. Anything with |n| would mean the exact value of n. n multiplied by 1 being defined as 1 or 0. or {|n(1)|} := {|1|,|0|}. Since it would be multiplied by a factor of 1. But if multiplied by a factor of 2 and so on then its {(|0b10| ∨ |2|), (|0b1| ∨ |1|), (|0b0| ∨ |0|)} Which would be (n+n'...). Why n+n' Well simply because that signifies the addition between the two binary numbers. And you use if functions to basically check if n equals a certain number whether its decimal or binary and then if the number equals each individual number of a table then the result should be true. This would work for both xor and xnor. But if you want to do xor then just do n%2=={}

I 💜 multi-paradigm languages. Always nice to be able to use the right tool for the job

Yes -- the same reason I like Common Lisp, give or take a few questionable macros that seem to be popular.

You sometimes lose a lot of the benefits of some paradigms by doing that, though. If you can return closures from methods inside objects that refer to instance variables, you lose some of the encapsulation. If you have a functional language where you can return a writable pointer to data, you lose the referential transparency. Stuff like that. Sort of like how an unsafe language lets you screw up *anyone's* code, not just yours.

Agreed this discussion is basically irrelevant in 2023, use classes and functions where appropriate and stop trying to be fashionable.

@@concernedcitizen3254 It's not about being fashionable. It's about understanding that the current state of the art is far from its pinnacle and we're slouching iteratively towards Bethlehem with each paradigm shift. We've been coding for maybe 100 years...where will we be in 100 more? 1000? 10,000?

Thanks! This was really nice to read

bruh let's be real. most imperative programmers arent going to have that hard of a time figuring out how map works. functional code can get really function-nested or transformation-nested and thats what trips people off. if you want to design an optimised functional style model of something, you have to plan ahead of the right transformations your input data should go through to give you the desired output and mastering that isnt just a matter of lack of familiarity with functional paradigm. it's genuinely objectively harder for normies to wrap their head around.

@@samuraijosh1595 That's because most people do a terrible job at domain modelling in their current paradigm too. Less of a functional programming problem, and more of a poor design problem.

The hardest part about learning FP is unlearning the imperative paradigm. People confuse simplicity and familiarity all the time, and it significantly hinders progress.

An excellent FORTRAN programmer is in every programming language an excellent ... FORTRAN programmer.

Yeah 😅 - I uploaded this a few days ago but took it down shortly after to fix some issues and add in some clearer explanations. It has quite a few changes since the last one!

Perfectly clearly explained if you are talking to an audience who already knows the information. Totally useless to a beginner.

​@@melissaprice1424 it's best for people like me ... where i have written few haskel and ocaml by never learned much deep

​@@melissaprice1424I could not say that it's totally useless since it introduced me to the different paradigms in one of the visuals as a beginner but I have to admit that most of the stuff goes in one ear and out to the other

although this was/is a valid pattern, it may be important to note that js has always been based on the prototype model, classes are mostly sugar around the same proto model. e.g. rather than write a function that statically returns new closures (costing memory because scope), you'd write a prototype object then construct that instead. search 'prototype mdn' for more info

That's called "Prototype OOP".

@@darrennew8211 Creating objects in closure isn't prototype OOP. Prototype OOP is attaching another actual object to search for properties in if they don't exist in initial object.

@@BlazingMagpie That's prototype inheritance. But sure, it can get kind of fuzzy around the edges, given the number of different ways to do encapsulation, instantiation, and inheritance.

i kinda still do this

No one is saying you *must*. But you definitely *should*.

No one with a job is telling you to use functional languages

Functional has its uses, a pure functional program doesn't do anything, as everything that matters to humans needs side effects. Coding languages support or do not support functional paradigms. C# is focused on OOP, where Rust is more focused on other styles.

It tends to work best when your problem domain is function. Something like a SQL interpreter (where the results are committed at the end) or a compiler or a sorting algorithm or something like that. If you're doing something intrinsically mutable (game engine) it's much less feasible and helpful, because as you say most of the errors made by people experienced enough to be using functional programming are logic errors.

@@aaronfleisher4694 I disagree that logic bugs are always careless coding. Sometimes they're just mistakes. Sometimes they're just situations your users tried that you didn't think of and break your code.

@@user-tx4wj7qk4t I disagree with your list of common bugs. Those are "common bugs that are pretty trivial to find the cause for." IME, any time the code base gets bigger than one person can keep in their head, the most common errors are 1) logic errors, 2) people who didn't know the requirements (whether coders or customers), 3) misunderstanding how libraries or frameworks you rely on work. 90% of what you say is right, but it's specific to a certain kind of program and a certain size of program.

@@user-tx4wj7qk4t I think you are generalizing too much. The software development space is large and the problems in on type of development are vastly different from those in another type of development. The issues in an OS project vs a website are vastly different. You mention null reference exceptions for example. When I code in Rust, I never ever get those because you can't. In JavaScript or Java it is certainly possible by in my experience relatively rare in Java and when it occurs in JavaScript it tends to be due to unexpected data entering the function not because of whether or not the parameters are mutable. I stand by my point that in my own line of work purely functional programming would not only be impossible but where it is possible it would make very little difference to the number of bugs I deal with because the vast majority of them have to do with issues of requirements, carelessness, communications between systems etc. We generally don't do unit testing for this reason because end to end testing is far more effective at picking up the bugs that actually occur. But in other types of development the experience will be very different. As mentioned I also have some work in Rust and the types of bugs are very different but still almost always intersystem or requirements related. Most of my Rust work however involves either new development or updating the code to handle updated dependencies. With Rust, my experience is that once it compiles it usually works and any changes will be due to new requirements not bugs.

@@user-tx4wj7qk4t Yes. It's entirely possible for something to be common but trivial. You know what's even more common and even more trivial, in exactly the same way? Misspelling a keyword, or leaving out a closing brace. Null reference exceptions are no longer a billion dollar mistake now that we have memory protection on computers. I disagree that the reduced cognitive load of FP would necessarily reduce the number of logical errors. A logical error is when you write code that you think is correct but it isn't. Making it easier to write correct code won't make you think the solution is better. I think people who are used to writing smaller simpler programs have a different idea of the distribution of bugs compared to someone writing large complex interacting long-lived systems.

1. Rust doesn't "claim" memory safety. 2. Some types of errors can indeed be solved by different (types of) languages. For example, data races are probably pretty rare in functional languages. 3. Std bugs are "relatively" rare and are mostly related to platform specific behaviour. For rust 0.7% of the issues on github affect std. But I do agree with the fact that a lot of bugs are logic related. Most important bugs are not though. (looking at you, 70% of chromiums high severity security bugs)

Care to share your secret... would love to make such illustrated videos for my students in class

Great animations, would love to know how too 😊

I believe he is using Adobe After Effects

Great comment!

Sounds about right. Tho unless you go into theorem-proving territory, you will often have multiple possible functions for any given type. (still, most of them will be obviously incorrect, so it's definitely harder to mess up)

can you give an actualy example of this instead of making a vague point that tries to assuage the bad reputation functional style has in terms of its performance?

@@samuraijosh1595 Gosh, sure! It’s going to be a struggle. A handful of functional programming talks do bring this up and mention it in passing, but it’s not the easiest to google search transcripts of RU-vid videos. I’ll see what I can dig up from my memory and I hope I can satisfy your question. Typing out a response on my phone is tricky. One would be Richard Feldman’s talk “outperforming imperative with pure functional” describing some work he’s doing on a newer language. A handful of Clojure talks mention this when introducing the language as a core for how they perform equality checks. There’s one by Mohit Thatte called “What Lies Beneath - A Deep Dive Into Clojure’s Data Structures”. And, I could have sworn there’s a talk by David Nolan where he’s doing a beginner’s talk for CLJS where he mentions the data structures in passing. I’m sure there’s other examples, but, simply, (some) functional language designers do not simply slap immutable structure primatives into their languages without thought or the recognition that there are performance hurdles. There’s tricks that go on under the hood that are intentionally hidden or at least abstracted from thought while you utilize it with the general immutable paradigm!

I learned a lot from this, thanks!

So, I took the time to learn quaternions. Doesn't that exempt me from learning monads?

@@clamhammer2463 While useful as a way to look at a 3D rotation in a 4D perspective, you were better off just learning 3D rotors as a Marc ten Bosch article explains. On the other hand, if you're in a code base already inundated in quaternions, you're good to go there. Might as well just learn linear types and effect systems if you only care to have effects from a straight forward perspective.

@@SimGunther this was mostly a joke but I was required to learn it in order to encode the pitch/yaw/roll of a spaceshuttle to easily do the math with an easier data structure. After looking into monads and learning what they are and what they are for, I'll realistically never reach in that pocket of my toolbag again.

@@clamhammer2463 Glad to hear about that experience with quarternions! Also, that impracticality and unwieldy nature of Monads beyond the super mathy world is exactly why I mentioned linear types and effect systems if that's the itch you need to scratch in a functional language.

Do you think there are actually less bugs?

@ashaw596 If you're using pure functions, the compiler detects a lot of the stuff for you that would otherwise get cought at runtime. So from my, albeit short, experience yeah it seems as advertised.

​@@user-tx4wj7qk4t Thankfully the company provided us with the latest edition of the book. Having to go through all of it and provide output in 3 weeks was quite the challenge, but we pulled through. We're getting engrossed with the frameworks that support it now.

Thanks man! Glad you enjoyed it. Yeah, to embrace a mix of the different paradigms is probably the best way to go! :)

He re-uploaded it

I took the original down shortly after to fix some issues and add in some clearer examples - hopefully it's better explained now.

Really nice to hear, thank you!

I think this is good feedback. I liked the visuals and tone but it unfortunately didn't help me take away any insight that I can apply to my own work. Maybe that's unfair as it might not have been the intention of the video. But I really would have liked to see the same concepts covered through a more problem-based learning approach. "Here's a scenario where non-functional code is problematic, and here's how you can apply these functional concepts to write better code". Great work though, just can be pushed further imo :)

It's definitely for the youtube algorithm/to get more attention. Apparently the original video title was "what the func()"

nah, it's tired. monad is just an interface of 3 functions. the real torture is haskell syntax.

It actually harms the video because it brings up an irrelevant concept that most viewers won't know about and thereby get confused by why it's brought up in the first place.

That's not really the goal of this channel. I'll do simple code comparisons and high level concepts but there are other channels and resources for more detailed learning. I can only cover so much and the point is to give people a basic understanding, enough to want to learn more on their own.

well, until you add concurrency. then oop would work fine, if every object was in its own light-weight thread and communicated through message passing. unfortunately i'm not aware of an oo language that works this way.

I love this idea so much 😂

Yup

Haha

Assist, not serve. Guiding is a part of assistance