171–180 of 355 posts
The king is dead, long live the king! Thinking that a new framework/language/paradigm will solve all your problems is naive. The author should know that if they've truly been programming for decades, as stated in the article.
God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.
God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.
But your comment is purely ad hominem -- to the point of calling the author a dipshit with absolutely no basis -- and does not engage TFA (breaking the first two comment guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this same react where your components keep internal state (called state) and every component must be created by extending a base class?
Conceptually, components have state, but it's all managed by react, so you only ever write pure functions. Granted, depending on how you update state in event handlers and lifecycle methods, you will need to think about state a lot, but this is an unavoidable fact of UI programming. > every component must be created by extending a base class This is an implementation detail, instead of ES6 classes you can also use Re…
God damn it I begin to hate Medium. Just another Bullshit article. When I read those dips ts description: "Software Engineer and Architect, Teacher, Writer, Filmmaker, Photographer, Artist…" Great. And you want to tell me that OO is dead and functional the only future? Fuck off.
It's not just Medium. I get followers on Twitter who have that kind of bio, except that the bio words are separated by pipe signs. My bogofilter tells me that they are all likely part of a scam of the same group. Further confirmed by the content of their tweets, which follow a pattern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For instance I have yet to see an easy and simple to use (and as such maintainable) functional widget and gui library. Like react?
My impression of react is that it's very object oriented. Defining reusable, stateful components is classic OO design. Now, I don't have much experience with React so maybe someone can explain why it should be considered "functional".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reason is much more fundamental - even now functional languages are slower - even with all the fancy modern compilers, optimizers, GCs that were not even in the same league 20 years ago or more. OO maps nicely to shared memory model and it's fairly low overhead compared to things like persistent collections data structures. This helps when you are forced to deal with lower level stuff. Nowdays we are IO b…
>even now functional languages are slower OCaml is famously faster than C++.
benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=ocaml&lang2=gpp
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that there is a real advantage to using pure functional programming; being able to easily prove theorems about your code and understand different components in isolation. There is a reason why the majority of proof assistants are implemented as functional languages. Most functional languages even give you ways of modelling imperative code (e.g. monads) in a way which hardly sacrifices expressiveness. The real…
> Except that there is a real advantage to using pure functional programming; being able to easily prove theorems about your code and understand different components in isolation. And how often does that occur in practice for most of the programs people write? Even the most hardcore Haskell programmer isn't going around proving theorems about their modules beyond what the type system can provide for free (and that is…
Programming paradigms are a lot like political parties -- they tend to lump a lot of disparate things together with a weakly uniting theme. You don't need inheritance for encapsulation to be useful, for instance. The problem is, sometimes you agree with only a small part of the platform. None of these things individually are terrible ideas if tastefully applied, but it all gets clumped together into one big blob of "…
Do you mean promoting, or enforcing?
There are many aspects of, say, the Zen of Python that I am very grateful for.
Most of the problems he brings up are already addressed in major OOP languages. 1) Inheritance can be confusing and messy. Yes, hence the advice: Prefer composition over inheritance. Instead of having B inherit from A, declare an interface I, and have both A and B implement I. If B wants to reuse A's functionality, it's free to do so through composition, and not through inheritance. There are some edge cases where in…
Personally I want to learn from and use a language that supports as many of the paradigms as possible, like Scala or Swift. Let me choose based on what I need. That being said I'd much rather work in pure FP then OOP because of the fact that most of the advantages of OOP can be achieved via FP and the inverse is not true.