3 ms·

Maybe it's because every time people talk about FP, someone has to dredge up an OO (read: enterprise Java) strawman showing all of its alleged deficiencies?

• KirinDave 8y ago
  No one did that here. There was no mention of OO. There was an allusion to how typed FP relies on extremely generic programming, which is a notable difference from many other programming approaches.
  • mpweiher 8y ago
    > which is a notable difference from many other programming approaches Except that it isn't "a notable difference", more precisely (quoting the original): "replace things that look like they would need custom language features, like multiple return or async, with libraries" Replacing "things that look like they would need custom language features" with libraries is exactly the essence of Smalltalk. "Talk small and carry a big class library" It's even in the Design Principles Behind Smalltalk: "A language must provide a means for classifying similar objects, and for adding new classes of objects on equal footing with the kernel classes of the system." So either there is a claim that "hey this is a cool way of doing things", in which case "yeah, I agree, this other thing does that as well" is completely benign. Or there is the claim "here is uniquely FP way of doing things", in which case the example of OO is a refutation. Either way the response is appropriate.