Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming • Hacker News Board

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#351

Post by qwertyuiop924 » Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 11:18 AM UTC

justin_vanw wrote: post #344

qwertyuiop924 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISWIM did exist, even if the compiler wasn't there. The lisp community did a lot of work with FP-style code, even if the language as a whole wasn't functional: the idea was still there. But your main point was that FP was useless, deriding it, and claiming that, "only people that talk about it are academics and people who want to seem smart," which is demonstrably not true. Even Smalltalk had map, filter, etc, and HO…

map, filter, etc are not 'functional'. 'functional' doesn't mean 'functions'. It is all about side effects, and that the procedures in the language are like mathematical functions: without state or side effects. Using your definition, virtually every language in use today is 'functional', all the way down to Fortran 77, since really any language you can get a pointer or other handle to a function or callable object w…

I wasn't making the point that map and filter were functional, I was trying to say that those were concepts originating in FP. And that they appear in so many languages demonstrates some of FP's influence.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#352

Post by eru » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:50 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #254

eru wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of software written ever has been written in the world's most popular functional programming language: Excel.

99.99% of what people do with Excel does not qualify as "software", unless you classify "A1+C3" as "software", in which case calling it "functional" becomes meaningless.

In that sense Excel is comparable to Bash.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#353

Post by jolux » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

yladiz wrote: post #193

jolux wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a false equivalence. Functional programming has a strong basis in discrete mathematics that OOP simply does not. This makes it better suited to accurately describing computation at a high level than OOP. However, you probably arrived at this conclusion because you still see programming languages as having intrinsic paradigms and those paradigms meaning anything about computation. The fact of the matter…

> The best programming language is the most accurate algorithmic notation system. Actually, the best programming language is the one you're programming in right now. /s Although my comment is in jest, I do think it has a lot of truth; I'm never going to write something for HPC in Haskell just because it has better algorithmic notation, I'd most likely choose Fortran or C. I'm not going to write a web back end in Hask…

Haskell is equally suited to backend web development as Python, Ruby, or JavaScript. Just look at Yesod. There's nothing about Haskell that makes it worse for web development, and a lot that makes it better.

For what it's worth, Haskell has uses in finance for statistical modeling because you can model different currencies and equities/derivatives with ADTs and the type system will ensure you never confuse them in your code. Haskell syntax is beautiful and in many cases mimics mathematical syntax and as such is used frequently by mathematicians.

But I don't mean this to be a defense of Haskell. There are many posts that do it better, just yesterday there was a blog post on the front page about one startup's use of Haskell in its main product: http://baatz.io/posts/haskell-in-a-startup/

There are other languages like Lisp that directly imitate lambda calculus. Lisp is elegant because it is like programming in a syntax tree with the entire structure of the tree available for manipulation such that you can create extremely concise and expressive programs with less code.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#354

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 4:54 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #37

ebbv wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a good analysis. While I was reading this article all I could think is "You wanted to do things in a bad way and then you learned how to do it the right way and you don't like the right way?" His entire problem seems to be he thought OO was a magic bullet he could do whatever he wanted with and then he learned there was more to using OO than the three concepts he cites at the beginning. And this guy has suppo…

Everything has limits. You're right, there are no magic bullets. OO is easier to code and maintain. That alone is worth it.

There is no good evidence that OO is easier to code and maintain than some alternative. In my experience (which is, of course, only anecdotal), the authors' skills are by far the strongest determinants of maintainability. In the wrong hands, OO features are just additional dimensions for obfuscation.

Re: Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming

#355

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 5:08 AM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #26

millstone wrote: post #21

Let me try to list the objections: 1. Inheritance creates dependencies on their parent class 2. Multiple inheritance is hard 3. Inheritance makes you vulnerable to changes in self-use 4. Hierarchies are awkward for expressing certain relationships All true. But likewise, functions introduce dependencies on their arguments, and data structures introduces dependencies on their fields. You must consider your dependencie…

That is a good analysis. While I was reading this article all I could think is "You wanted to do things in a bad way and then you learned how to do it the right way and you don't like the right way?" His entire problem seems to be he thought OO was a magic bullet he could do whatever he wanted with and then he learned there was more to using OO than the three concepts he cites at the beginning. And this guy has suppo…

You all have missed the point that the author is well aware of what needs to be done to avoid the pitfalls of OO and be productive in an OO language. His point is that OO is still being taught, promoted and justified with the same simplistic claims and assumptions that were made in the 90s.