I find the "FP jargon" and "math-babble" to be annoying, but not nearly annoying as the sort of infantilization sites like this engage in. It's a common trope to "dumb down" complex topics into cartoonish explanations, but in reality it only makes the content more confusing, while simultaneously insulting its readers by treating them like children.
No, I don't need a "cartoon intro to DNS over HTTP" to understand basic networking concepts. Nor do I need a story about "Dr Frankenfunctor and the Monadster" to understand functional programming concepts. Even when I was a teenager reading about OOP, I didn't want to read about the "Car class inheriting from the Vehicle class" or the "Dog class inheriting from the Animal class."
When reading technical content, I always prefer prose that treats its readers as professionals, rather than five-year-olds incapable of understanding complexity without resorting to vacuous and incomplete analogies. The problem is that complex topics are complex. By their very nature they rarely fit into convoluted analogies, and would be better explained by simple use cases and examples.
Yeah, this website doesn't dumb things down. That page is an exception really. It just deliberately avoids using the common FP words that don't really have any meaning to 99% of programmers.
As this huge, detailed, functional programming resource demonstrates, it's perfectly possible to write clear and detailed functional programming guides without that jargon.
This criticism doesn't really apply to the site under discussion...
F# for Fuin and profit has oodles of pragmatic, every-day, help and information in addition to a repository of relatively 'esoteric' issues for FP (particularly on .NET), for work-a-day coders. It's a deeply accessible guide and does an outstanding job of reframing techniques unknown to OOP devs in terms they understand while leaving deeper mathematical issues to their appropriate forums.
I'm also gonna take issue with calling FP terms "math-babble". It's just called "math" ;)
No, I don't need a "cartoon intro to DNS over HTTP" to understand basic networking concepts. Nor do I need a story about "Dr Frankenfunctor and the Monadster" to understand functional programming concepts. Even when I was a teenager reading about OOP, I didn't want to read about the "Car class inheriting from the Vehicle class" or the "Dog class inheriting from the Animal class."
When reading technical content, I always prefer prose that treats its readers as professionals, rather than five-year-olds incapable of understanding complexity without resorting to vacuous and incomplete analogies. The problem is that complex topics are complex. By their very nature they rarely fit into convoluted analogies, and would be better explained by simple use cases and examples.