3 ms·

Effect segregation isn't a “paradigm”: it's just having the right type structure to classify programs according to their possible effects. And, sure, it's compa

Effect segregation isn't a “paradigm”: it's just having the right type structure to classify programs according to their possible effects. And, sure, it's compatible with object-orientation. Why wouldn't it be? You just slap an effect annotation (explicit or inferred) onto every method signature. Pure object-orientation is a bad idea for other reasons (e.g., the binary method problem), but “inability to control effects” is totally bullshit.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Of course you can design a type system that has objects and also segregates effects. The question is whether that would be particularly helpful for structuring a program if you're trying to write explicitly in the OOP paradigm. Functional programming is a paradigm, and it emphasizes the segregation of effects. OOP traditionally does not.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  You're conflating paradigms (program design philosophies) with language features (program design tools): (0) Functional programming is a paradigm that encourages expressing computation as expression evaluation, and discourages relying on more computational effects than are necessary to obtain a desired result. (1) Object-oriented programming is a paradigm that discourages directly manipulating data structures from different parts of a program. Objects expose operations that act on a data structure hidden from the rest of the program. (2) Effect segregation is a feature of some programming languages, notably Haskell and its descendants. An effect system classifies computations according to their possible effects, just like a type system classifies computations according to their possible results. You wouldn't call static typing a paradigm, right?
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    You're right, effect segregation is not a paradigm per se. The fact still stands that it's closely aligned with the functional programming paradigm, and not OOP. Programing paradigms and language features are closely related: certain features make certain paradigms easier, and paradigms spur the development of particular features.

smallnamespace 10y ago

Of course you can design a type system that has objects and also segregates effects. The question is whether that would be particularly helpful for structuring a program if you're trying to write explicitly in the OOP paradigm. Functional programming is a paradigm, and it emphasizes the segregation of effects. OOP traditionally does not.

catnaroek 10y ago
You're conflating paradigms (program design philosophies) with language features (program design tools): (0) Functional programming is a paradigm that encourages expressing computation as expression evaluation, and discourages relying on more computational effects than are necessary to obtain a desired result. (1) Object-oriented programming is a paradigm that discourages directly manipulating data structures from different parts of a program. Objects expose operations that act on a data structure hidden from the rest of the program. (2) Effect segregation is a feature of some programming languages, notably Haskell and its descendants. An effect system classifies computations according to their possible effects, just like a type system classifies computations according to their possible results. You wouldn't call static typing a paradigm, right?
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  You're right, effect segregation is not a paradigm per se. The fact still stands that it's closely aligned with the functional programming paradigm, and not OOP. Programing paradigms and language features are closely related: certain features make certain paradigms easier, and paradigms spur the development of particular features.