Who here is a functional programmer?

>>59087136
No one, sad!

This is /g/ no one actually programs shit, it's all AMD is dead / winning threads.

Racket is probably your best bet as a functional language. Their documentation and resources for learning it are second to none.
https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/intro.html

The other upside is that it is one of the few lisp like languages that doesn't expect you to use emacs (I'm a vim user normally). DrRacket isn't too bad of an IDE.

There are a growing set of resources to apply functional programming to whatever language you're a native in - I've been following a PluralSight course on functional C# programming (I'm a C# dev at work), which has been interesting to see how to separate out mutable state.

>>59087327

Sorry I forgot to mention that Racket is also able to be taught to kids (and is I believe in a few schools) - you won't get too much of that feeling that you needed to be a phD in maths to understand the basics.

I found it slightly difficult as I'm wired to OO thinking, but it still has been a fun trip.

>>59087136

I highly recommend functional programming in scala. I write functional scala for a living, bretty nice language

>>59087403
i'm working in java mainly and do a lot of haskell stuff privately, often miss functional stuff in java, can i easily use scala along with the remaining legacy java code or is it better only to use it in scala-only projects. Is there an equivalent to the spring framework in scala? (i think you can use spring in scala, but i mean, in a functional way?)

>>59087627
Scala plays well with java, if you want to you can write scala as a better java, but you can also go full autism if you want to. With compiler plugins declaring typeclasses become relatively painless as well.