Functional Programming: Beyond the Vampire Castle

I recently spotted a meme on LinkedIn featuring a brooding, aristocratic Dracula asking, "What is a monad but a monoid in the category of endofunctors?" – accompanied by no explanation whatsoever. I chuckled, as one does when recognising an in-joke, but then found myself pondering a rather uncomfortable question: Is this really how we want to present functional programming to the world?

The Allure of the Arcane

There's something undeniably satisfying about mastering difficult concepts. When I first grasped the elegant power of immutable data structures, higher-order functions, and composability, it felt like discovering a secret door in a familiar house – one that led to a vast, beautiful landscape I'd never known existed. That eureka moment is profound, even transformative.

But here's the rub: why do we in the functional programming community so often present that door as if it requires an arcane ritual to unlock? Why do we seem to relish the impenetrability of our terminology?

Let's be honest with ourselves. There's a whiff of intellectual snobbery in the air when functional programmers gather. We've all heard (or perhaps even made) the disparaging remarks about "Java drones" or "code monkeys churning out mutable state on corporate slave galleys". We swap stories about the moment we "finally understood monads" as if recounting our initiation into a secret society. We wear our hard-won knowledge as a badge of honour – and sometimes, if we're being truly honest, as a mark of superiority.

The Hidden Cost of Exclusivity

This exclusivity comes at a cost. Functional programming remains woefully underutilised in the industry at large, despite offering compelling solutions to many of the problems that plague software development. Concurrency, side effect management, robust testing, code reuse – these aren't niche concerns, they're central challenges in modern software engineering. Yet we've somehow managed to position our toolbox of solutions as if it's too rarified for everyday use.

Consider the meme I mentioned. For the initiated, it's a humorous reference to a famously opaque definition. For everyone else, it's not just impenetrable – it actively signals that they don't belong in the conversation. It's a velvet rope strung across the entrance to a club they didn't even know they might want to join.

I'm reminded of my journey from Common Lisp to Clojure. Both languages offer powerful functional paradigms, but Clojure has managed to achieve something remarkable: it has brought functional programming concepts to a significantly wider audience. It didn't accomplish this by watering down the functional paradigm, but by emphasising practicality alongside purity. By meeting developers where they are – on the JVM, with access to the libraries and tools they already know – Clojure created an on-ramp rather than a barrier.

No Monads Required

Here's something we don't acknowledge often enough: you don't actually need to understand monads to be a productive functional programmer. In fact, in languages like Clojure, you can write elegant, powerful functional code for years without ever encountering the term. The core principles of functional programming – immutability, pure functions, higher-order functions, composability – can be understood through practical examples without diving into category theory.

This isn't to say that the deeper theory isn't valuable. Of course it is! The mathematical foundations of functional programming provide extraordinary insight and power. But they're not the entrance exam. They're advanced courses you can take once you're already enrolled.

Yet somehow, we've allowed the most theoretically complex aspects of functional programming to become its public face. It's as if we're advertising a car based on its differential equations rather than where it can take you.

The False Dichotomy

There's an insidious implication lurking beneath this state of affairs: the notion that there are two classes of programmers – the enlightened few who grasp the elegant abstractions of functional programming, and the unwashed masses writing imperative code. This is, to put it bluntly, utter bollocks.

The reality is far more nuanced. Most programmers exist on a spectrum of understanding and application of functional principles. Many Java developers make excellent use of streams and lambdas. JavaScript programmers increasingly embrace immutability and pure functions. Even in traditionally imperative contexts, functional patterns are gaining traction.

These aren't "lesser" applications of functional programming – they're pragmatic adaptations that solve real problems. The senior developer who introduces Option types to avoid null pointer exceptions in a legacy Java codebase is applying functional thinking in a way that delivers immediate, tangible benefits. Should we really consider them less enlightened than someone who can recite the monad laws but has never shipped a product?

Building Bridges, Not Walls

If we truly believe in the benefits of functional programming – and I certainly do – then we should be building bridges to make these ideas more accessible, not walls to keep the uninitiated out.
​
What might this look like in practice?

For starters, we could focus our evangelical efforts on the practical benefits rather than the theoretical foundations. When I'm talking to a team about adopting Clojure or functional patterns, I don't open with category theory. I talk about dramatically reduced bug rates due to immutability. I show how composable functions lead to more reusable code. I demonstrate how side effect isolation makes testing simpler and more reliable. And to really wow them, I might describe how immutable data structures instantly solve the Undo/Redo problem for any application with a frontend.

We could also acknowledge that functional programming isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Encouraging teams to adopt functional patterns incrementally within their existing codebases can yield substantial benefits and build confidence for deeper adoption. The choice isn't between pure Haskell and imperative spaghetti code – there's a vast, productive middle ground.

Most importantly, we need to shift our community culture away from exclusivity and toward inclusivity. This doesn't mean abandoning rigour or depth – it means recognising that everyone starts somewhere, and the journey from imperative to functional thinking is challenging enough without adding artificial barriers.

The Clojure Case Study

It's worth examining why Clojure has been relatively successful in attracting developers who might otherwise have been put off by functional programming's reputation for difficulty.

Firstly, Clojure is pragmatic to its core. It embraces functional principles without dogmatism, allowing for controlled mutability when necessary. It prioritises solving real problems over theoretical purity.

Secondly, it meets developers where they are. By running on the JVM (and later JavaScript engines), it allows gradual adoption and interoperability with existing systems.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Clojure community has generally focused on what the language enables rather than how clever you need to be to use it. The emphasis has been on what you can build, not on arcane knowledge as a status marker.

This approach hasn't compromised the language's functional credentials – Clojure remains thoroughly functional in its philosophy and implementation. But it has made those functional principles accessible to a much wider audience.

A More Welcoming Future

I'd like to see a functional programming community that celebrates bringing new people in rather than keeping them out. One that takes as much pride in making complex concepts accessible as it does in mastering them.

Imagine if our response to someone struggling with functional concepts wasn't "Well, once you understand monads..." but rather "Here's how this approach solved a similar problem I had..."

Imagine if we shared our enthusiasm not through insider references that exclude the uninitiated, but through concrete examples that demonstrate the real-world power of functional approaches.

Imagine if we recognised that the true measure of our understanding isn't our ability to recite category theory, but our ability to apply these principles to build better software and help others do the same.

As I continue to develop Ooloi, my open-source music notation project in Clojure, I'm constantly reminded of this tension. The functional paradigm allows me to build a system that's both powerful and elegant. The code is concise, composable, and expressive in ways that would be difficult to achieve with imperative approaches. But when I'm documenting the system or preparing it for open-source collaboration, I'm mindful of the need to make these concepts accessible.

The goal isn't to water down the functional aspects – they're essential to the system's design. Rather, it's to provide on-ramps that allow developers to engage with these ideas gradually, to see their practical benefits before diving into the deeper theory.

Conclusion

Functional programming isn't a secret to be jealously guarded – it's a powerful set of tools that can dramatically improve how we build software. Its core insights deserve to be widely shared and applied.

​So the next time you're tempted to share that monad joke or category theory reference, ask yourself: Am I opening a door or closing one? Am I inviting others to share in something valuable, or am I simply signalling my own cleverness?

We don't need gatekeepers in the functional programming community. We need guides. Guides who remember what it was like not to know, who can explain complex concepts in accessible terms, who take pride not in how exclusive their knowledge is but in how effectively they can share it.
​
After all, what is a community but a group of people helping each other grow?

---