Even the GUI can follow the FCIS architecture. It helps immensely with testing and moving things around.
For a bigger program that handles lots of things, you can still build it around the FCIS architecture, you just end up with more in->chains of functions->out. The things at the edges might grow, but at a much slower pace than the core.
My experience with both sides is what's driven me to FP+immutability.
For your last question: I believe it's a false belief. I believed the same when I started with FP+immutability. I just did not understand where I should put my changes, because I was so used to mutating a variable. Turned out that I only really need to mutate it when I store in a db of some sort (frontend or backend), send it over the wire (socket, websocket, http response, gRPC, pub/sub, etc) or act as an object hiding inherit complexity (hardware state like push button, mouse, keyboard, etc). Graphics would also qualify, but that's one area where I think FP+immutability is ill suited.
You are very right in that things need to change. If they don't, nothing interesting happens and we as programmers don't get paid :p. State changes are typically moved to the edges of a program. Functional Core, Imperative Shell is the name for that particular architecture style.
FCIS can be summed up as: R->L->W where R are all your reads, L is where all the logic happens and is done in the FP paradigm, and W are all your writes. Do all the Reads at the start, handle the Logic in the middle, Write at the end when all the results have been computed. Teasing these things apart can be a real pain to do, but the payoff can be quite significant. You can test all your logic without needing database or other services up and running. The logic in the middle becomes less brittle and allows for easier refactoring as there is a clear separation between R, L and W.
For your first question. Yes, and I might misunderstand the question, so give me some rope to hang myself with will ya ;). I would argue that what you really need to care about is the data that you are working with. That's the real program. Data comes in, you do some type of transformation of that data, and you write it somewhere in order to produce an effect (the interesting part). The part where FP becomes really powerful, is when you have data that always has a certain shape, and all your functions understands and can work with the shape of that data. When that happens, the functions starts to behave more like lego blocks. The data shape is the contract between the functions, and as long as they keep to that contract, you can switch out functions as needed. And so, in order to answer the question, yes, you do need to understand the entire program, but only as the programmer. The function doesn't, and that's the point. When the code that resides in the function doesn't need to worry about what the state of the rest of the program is, you as the programmer can reason about the logic inside, without having to worry about some other part of the program doing something that it should do that at the same time will mess up the code that is inside the function.
Debugging in FP typically involves knowing the data and the function that was called. You rarely need to know the entire state of the program.
The way I like to think about is that with immutable data as default and pure functions, you get to treat the pure functions as black boxes. You don't need to know what's going on inside, and the function doesn't need to know what's going on in the outside world. The data shape becomes the contract.
As such, localized context, everywhere, is perhaps the best way to explain it from the point of view of a mutable world. At no point do you ever need to know about the state of the entire program, you just need to know the data and the function. I don't need the entire program up and running in order to test or debug this function. I just need the data that was sent in, which CANNOT be changed by any other part of the program.
'vi'
'emacs'
'jove' -- use whatever editor floats your boat
but learn the hell out of it
you should know EVERY command in your editor
Those who picked emacs from that list never got the point of writing any code for the MUD. They greatly contributed to OS development all over the world however.
There is a functional core in js, and as such it might be an idea to take a look at common OOP design patterns and how they translate to an FP approach.
Yes, so in that sense it's sharded. In another sense it's all one server, as you can warp between different systems and meet all the players there in the game. Everything is run on one giant server.
Not sure how it is now, but back in 2014-2016 you could inform them of big battles ahead of time for a specific system, at which point they would, in their own words, reinforce the node (moving that particular system to its own allocation of resources). This often was the difference between being able to duke it out in an epic space battle or wait for the system to load while everyone lagged to death.
Used to play EVE a long time ago in a known alliance. The game mechanics were not that good. What made the game shine was that it's an extremely complex sandbox game, where almost anything goes. This leads to a very complex game that is almost entirely governed by how the other players react to your interactions with them. The drama, dreams, hopes and despair that comes with playing the game is the real reward.
It used to be that the game was really harsh when you screwed up, which made the adrenaline pump when you did something you knew was dangerous. For me as a hardcore gamer at the time, that was the initial kick. Now a days I believe they have lessened the harshness a bit, but it should still be one of the few games where you can lose literally hundreds of hours in investment by losing everything you own in the game.
For a bigger program that handles lots of things, you can still build it around the FCIS architecture, you just end up with more in->chains of functions->out. The things at the edges might grow, but at a much slower pace than the core.
My experience with both sides is what's driven me to FP+immutability.
For your last question: I believe it's a false belief. I believed the same when I started with FP+immutability. I just did not understand where I should put my changes, because I was so used to mutating a variable. Turned out that I only really need to mutate it when I store in a db of some sort (frontend or backend), send it over the wire (socket, websocket, http response, gRPC, pub/sub, etc) or act as an object hiding inherit complexity (hardware state like push button, mouse, keyboard, etc). Graphics would also qualify, but that's one area where I think FP+immutability is ill suited.
Hit me up if you have any more questions :).