are you unmoved by the typical example iterating over an array Declarative Style vs Imperative Style?
I’ve yet to see an example that even makes any sense; or more specifically any example that makes the current hot and trendy argument over it seem even remotely sane and rational.
There’s a LOT of stuff right now people are singing the praises of and wasting massive amounts of time jumping through flaming hoops to implement that I just don’t see the advantages of. Any ALLEGED advantages typically amounting to propaganda, a failure to grasp complexity mismatch, and a general lack of knowledge of how computers ACTUALLY work.
Honestly, I think a few programming languages out there spend so much time fighting how computers work, they take the simplest of tasks, make them as difficult as possible, and then slap dumbass marketing blurbs and bald faced lies on them to sucker nubes and rubes alike.
See the mind-numbing dumbass monuments to stupidity that are “frameworks”
Declarative is fine and dandy when logic isn’t involved. It tends to go bits-up face-down once LOGIC is involved, crippling and bloating out the code of any task more complex than “see spot run”… and for what? Brainless fools crying “wah wah, I have to tell teh cumpooter how to due tings?” — plow that idiocy.
It reminds me a lot of the abortive wreck of career educator bullshit that was Prolog. “The language that would change everything!”… right.
i mentioned xslt. that’s pretty old y’know.
Yeah, and it was basically stillborn a decade and a half ago. Only — again not to single out specific groups — career educators and a handful of early adopters now STUCK in using it giving a flying purple fish about it.
It was a convoluted, cryptic, hard to use mess that no sane developer actually wanted, that ended up a hobble skirt the moment you stopped having static data to work with.
Much like the abortive wreck that was XHTML 2.
but i think the literal questions i asked were quite plain.
I didn’t even see actual questions. Pascal is declarative yes… that came across as a sardonic statement; not a question.
i was giving an example of what a “Promise” would look like syntactically in html. if we are going to critique, we should feel obliged to be language authors to some extent.
And I would sooner suck the business end of a two chambered chemical expansion high velocity lead shot projector than see code like that become the norm… but then I think most “template systems” are incompetent trash, particularly in cases like PHP where the underlying language IS a template system.
Which is why this “attempt to make it ‘simpler’ by making everything ten times harder” nonsense raises the hackles on my hackles.
but if i mention xslt and you call that “buzzwords”, we’re on two different levels.
I find it odd you focused on XSLT of the various technologies you mentioned, when honestly those weren’t the words I was focusing on.
The way people throw around words like imperative and declarative is where things become buzzwords, particularly when mated to other nonsense so common in this industry. Whilst yes they do have meanings, the way most people use them just takes simple concepts and makes it cryptic.
But to be fair I consider C syntax and arrow functions to be cryptic halfwit BS, YMMV.
I simply didn’t find your post to say anything that formed a coherent thought or direction relating to the topic at hand.
xslt was and is a fairly sophisticated, proven technology with wide support.
Emphasis on was… and sophisticated is a really nice word for “aggravatingly crypic, obtuse, convoluted, and a conceptual dead-end”. Hence why M$ told XSLT in the browser to go suck an egg, and I agreed with their reasoning given how it typically pisses on usability and accessibility.
Hence why — again — it was nearly stillborn, and to this day only really has early adopters STUCK WITH IT because they’ve built too much ignorant crap with it. And then wonder why their sites are accessibility disasters that lands them in court.
But I work as an accessibility consultant, so a LOT of the things people advocate for methodologies, “paradigms”, and ideologies are the crap I have to kick in the groin and rip out wholesale for clients on a good 80%+ of my contracts.
Used to be going into a job was just swapping out PX for EM, making sure the layout was elastic, semi-fluid, and responsive, checking for colour contrasts, and making sure any webfonts didn’t violate rendering norms (like that dipshit “raleway” font from Google), and adjusting semantics. Today though?
I end up having to tell clients to throw out the entire mess and start over from scratch. Why? These idiotic programming models, shoe-horning of imperative methodologies into declarative languages in cases where you NEED to be declarative to have actual logic, or where the ridiculously cryptic nature of the code makes it painful to maintain much less fix. Because of the halfwit use of mind-numbingly dumbass trash like React and Vue in a manner that doesn’t gracefully degrade scripting off.
Made all the worse by the asshat practice of “semantics, what’s that?!?” so common to every last blasted front-end framework. PROOF that the people who MAKE frameworks like Bootcrap or Tailwind aren’t qualified to write a single damned line of HTML, much less have the unmitigated gall to tell others how to do so.
So if I’m being “knee-jerk reactionary” it’s because I’ve seen this chazerie and the putz who promote it do nothing more than bend client after client over a log like poor Ned Beatty’s river trip. “Squeal like a pig, boy!” Something only further exacerbated by the people at these companies — where said site owners are in COURT over their accessibility woes — who go out of their way to defend their broken pedantic, shoe-horned nonsense.
Oft to the point I have to get people fired. Most often middle and upper managers with six figure salaries…. You know the types, the ones who get their tech advice from Forbes or Bloomberg, which is the equivalent of getting financial advice from Popular Electronics or 2600?
They will prattle on about declarative, imperative, “functional programming”… they will defend the practice of scripttardery that doesn’t graceful degrade… anything and everything they can do to deflect fault. Using market-speak double-talk and glittering generalities to avoid responsibility or wrongdoing.
It’s why there’s a LOT of words where— at least when I hear them in relation to programming — I automatically glaze over and assume the orator in question is full of shit. Imperative, declarative, functional, agile, adaptive, transparency, composition, extraction, side-effect, currying, monad, reflection… Again maybe it’s because I started out in assembly, and worked with proper high level languages like C and Ada, but these abstract concepts are to me time wasting bullshit for people who probably shouldn’t be programming in the first damned place. Yes, they have meanings, shame most people who say them are just parroting nonsense they learned from scam artists and people who never actually wrote a real program. (like career educators and career students, some of the biggest bullshit artists in the field!)
This industry as a whole has a severe problem with misuse of words, a love for sick buzzwords and spin, and if nothing else BALD FACED LIES! Anything to maintain the ILLUSION that programming is some grand topic. When what they’re really doing is trying to turn “see spot, see spot run” into vector calculus to sustain and promote their own L33t status.
And if you hadn’t noticed from my — as Patton would call it — “eloquence”, I may be a bit too blue collar for this stuff.