Talk:Functional programming/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.


 * Many sections/subsections of this article are completely uncited, and most are undercited: History and Concepts, for instance.


 * There are six outstanding requests for citation.


 * There is one broken link.


 * The lead jumps too quickly into jargon, and so is not accessible to the general reader.


 * Some of the prose needs attention, for instance: "Microsoft has turned its attention towards functional programming with introduction of F#, a .NET based functional programming language, in 2005."


 * "In 2008, Microsoft Research is adding F#, a functional language, to their .NET platform." Seems inconsistent with the statement above.


 * "Pure functional programming disallows side effects completely." Isn't "completely" redundant here? If impure functional programming allows side effects, then in what sense is it functional programming?


 * "... for example the common function map cane be implemented ...". Should that be "can be implemented", or is there the concept of a function map cane in functional programming?


 * There is an external link in the History section. External links should only appear in the External links section.


 * Some weasel words: "While existing monads are easy to use, many find it difficult to understand how to define new monads ...". How many? More than find it easy? Most? "There are tasks ... that often seem most naturally implemented with state." Often seems to who? You? Me?


 * In general I don't get the impression that this article makes any effort to explain functional programming to the general reader. By that I'm not suggesting that it ought to be dumbed down – quite the reverse in fact; there are some areas such as monads where I think it's quite light – but that it needs to be made more accessible.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)