91–100 of 133 posts
Likewise all the functional programming languages that get used as example, are also not pure FP, rather multi-paradigm, also supporting concepts from OOP.
"FP vs OOP: Choose Two by Brian Goetz"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't "object over network" basically microservices?
No! Micro services are value-over-network, hopefully with idempotent semantics. CORBA is object-over-network, with clients holding references to server objects and a protocol that passes around object references over the network. It is true that one can do value-over-network within a CORBA environment by throwing away 95% of the features, but that is not idiomatic CORBA and was sneered upon as not object-oriented eno…
The problem for me in regards to OOP is the complexity related to the management of state. OOP encourages mutability and understanding the state of an object as its methods are called can be confusing when additional internal (and often times, private) methods are called. In functional programming, state is something acted upon by functions. It is as simple as f(x) = y. Reasoning in functional programming is much clo…
> OOP encourages mutability This is largely only true in the post-bjarne soustrop OOP era. The smalltalk or actor paradigms don't necessarily encourage state mutation.
I really liked the first half - he provides some insightful thoughts on both why OOP doesn't quite deliver on the promise, and why it continues to be popular anyway. I am also becoming increasingly enamored of procedural programming as a default approach. Functional is also good - it's one of my first loves - but I find that it can be similarly prone to encouraging premature abstraction. Like OOP, that problem isn't…
It is quite obvious to me that the author is ignorant on the history of computing. The reason of the popularity of OOP is way longer than java, Xerox invented the graphical desktop and ALSO OOP. When Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple he created NEXT because he believed OOP was the next big thing. It was, and it became the foundation of MacOS X. Microsoft copied Steve Jobs in Windows with MFC. Java copied all of them.…
Oop is slower than functional in many cases. The highly optimized java stack isn’t that fast and still uses oodles of memory. And then there’s languages like ruby which are practically slower than writing shell scripts.
Only thanks to researchers like Simon Peyton Jones[1], did functional language compilers improved their code quality.
[1] - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-imp...
It is quite obvious to me that the author is ignorant on the history of computing. The reason of the popularity of OOP is way longer than java, Xerox invented the graphical desktop and ALSO OOP. When Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple he created NEXT because he believed OOP was the next big thing. It was, and it became the foundation of MacOS X. Microsoft copied Steve Jobs in Windows with MFC. Java copied all of them.…
Functional programming has little impact on performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory this sounds great but in reality every major application, game, operating system and even website is written in an OOP style. Why is that? People should first answer that question. Yeah, real existing software has flaws like every other thing in reality but at least it exists unlike a significant piece of fp style software. I like fp and I think it has a lot to teach but I think it's a bit presumptuous to a…
http://paulgraham.com/avg.html
I get the sense that many commenters here, YNews in 2019, very much fit the description of a "Blub" programmer.. with the added twist that it is -giant-cloud-thing- platform and/or exciting web trends are my thing, to deepen the "Blub" point of view..
.. can't help but chuckle at the repeated and fairly clever jabs at ASM, considering it took M$FT ten years to make a windowing GUI that performed well enough on a PC, after the Mac OS was written in a lot of ASM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't "object over network" basically microservices?
No. Microservices pass data over the network. Distributed objects get handles to remote objects and then make calls to them. Sometimes there could be very many of them and it all got very complex and had poor performance. Microservices are still object oriented because each service is an object and the data being passed is a message. They are big objects. Alan Kay said that one if the mistakes with OO was not making…
While at that, “message passing” [aka goto with arguments] is too fine grained of a concept, what people need 99% of the time is a structured function call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Mental overhead is greatly reduced when you can assume that your data structures are immutable”. I’ve been reading lots of articles claiming that but I still haven’t understand how that’s so. If you have fifty functions all acting on the same piece of state, why would returning new objects instead of mutating would greatly reduce mental overhead? Isn’t there still mental overhead in tracking which of the fifty funct…
simply this: when any function returns a result, you never need to worry about anything else in the universe changing too. It's a self-contained operation with totally predictable results and no side effects.
The irony of the anti-OOP bashers is that all successful GUI frameworks are OOP based, even those written in non-OOP languages like C. Likewise all the functional programming languages that get used as example, are also not pure FP, rather multi-paradigm, also supporting concepts from OOP. "FP vs OOP: Choose Two by Brian Goetz" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSk5fdKbd3o