Functional programming design patterns by Scott Wlaschin

In object-oriented development, we are all familiar with design patterns such as the Strategy pattern and Decorator pattern, and design principles such as SOLID. The functional programming community has design patterns and principles as well. This talk will provide an overview of some of these, and present some demonstrations of FP design in practice.

[fnvtyjkusg]

That guy laughing is having the time of his life

[jonathanwatmough]

This is by far the best functional programming talk I have ever seen.

Brilliant work.

[LizardanNet]

Best talk on FP I've seen. And I've seen a lot. Thank you Sir.

[DrewRoses]

One of the best intros do FP, hands down. Every concept is explained in a clear, pragmatic way and on top of that Scott has a great sense of humor!

[WateryIce]

Scott's explanation of mapping, functors, and monads is gold. I've read quite a few tutorials and videos in an effort to better understand Haskell, but couldn't quite understand the overall picture until watching this.

[leminha]

I'm currently learning Haskell and after watching many presentations, many books, many lectures, I find this to be the best introduction to functional programming. This talk generalizes, provides the big picture of functional programming. Many light bulbs popped up on my head when I was listening to this.

[stas]

While I have quite a long way to go until I can properly re-program my brain to think more functionally, this talk really helped spark a couple light bulb moments. Some of the ideas I actually ran back to my company's OOP Enterprise code and implemented, funny enough. Great video, hopefully a couple more of these and I'll have my head wrapped around this crazy functional world :)

[ChatterboxBS]

Best talk I have seen in a long long time

[romanemul]

basically many presenters which i have seen so far started introduction into FP same way as the last statement. "Monad is just a together with bunch of lines with FP stuff while repeating same words over and over. Monoids, monads, functors, endomorphisms without explaining single word. This guy made this stuff much more clearer. Very good presentation.

[mpi]

Clearest conceptual presentation on FP I have seen so far

[dasprince]

Probably the best talk I've watched so far on FP! Explained everything clearly!

[MrSenseofReason]

It's just amazing that i can find this full length lecture online! Thank you for the upload, the internet is incredible.

[artronics]

Wow, in an hour you explained concepts that I was struggling to grasp for almost one week! Best talk on FP

[dexio]

Finally I started to understand FP. Thanks for this presentation. Much better than a lot of those yapping and preaching ones on the Youtube.

[yarilich]

Enjoyed the talk very much, especially the humor. I came here as a professional Scala developer after an interview where I failed to enumerate functional programming patterns I use. I leave kinda disappointed because I use most of these patterns daily anyway. I guess when I'm asked to enumerate functional programming patterns I use again, I'm just going to use the fancy names like continuations, monadic bind and functors.

[JMROMERO]

Best talk ever about functional programming! Thank you so much

[privetvastutnestoyalo]

Thanks for this talk, FP is finally starting to make sense for me.

[NikolaiAleksandrenko]

Best talk on FP I've seen. Thank you.

[TimTeatro]

Beautiful talk. Probably the best introductions I've seen. And I think the comments under-rate the humour. I thought it was funny as hell.

One NB (which the speaker probably is well aware of): 56:37 all monoids are either groups or semigroups, identity element or no. A group is a monoid with inverses. For example, integers under addition, (Z, +), form a group, where the inverses are the negative numbers: 5 + (-5) = 0. However, if I take only non-negative integers with addition ( { z in Z | z >= 0 }, + ), there are no inverses so I get a monoid, which is called a semigroup because it doesn't entirely satisfy the group axioms. But notice, it still has an identity element (that is, zero).

So, it isn't wrong, but it isn't entirely correct to say that a monoid with no identity is called a semigroup, since monoids WITH an identity element may also be called semigroups.

[sguoqing]

This is great to get it clear for critical FP concepts from this video