4 ms·

> Objects can have a private state. This is a problem with mutability, not oriented object programing. You can have non mutable OOP. Wouldn't this violate the

by mises 7y ago

> Objects can have a private state. This is a problem with mutability, not oriented object programing. You can have non mutable OOP. Wouldn't this violate the "encapsulation" pillar of OOP? As far as I know, it's always taught with encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism being its three pillars. > How has OOP created a software industry that would not have existed if functional programing had "won the fight"? I'm not sure functional programming has lost yet. I haven't worked with it personally, and so can't speak to its merits or demerits, but have heard a lot of buzz around it recently. As you said, people tend to hype everything; some stay and some go. It might be the next big thing in programming, or it might be hipster tech. Or, like most things, it might have some good applications, but not be applicable to everything. That's basically my argument for OOP.

vhb 7y ago
> Wouldn't this violate the "encapsulation" pillar of OOP? As far as I know, it's always taught with encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism being its three pillars. Encapsulation is "if you have a state, you should encapsulate it". It does not ask you to have a state (even less a mutable one). I quite often use object to represent a logical piece of code, without any attributes. > I'm not sure functional programming has lost yet. I haven't worked with it personally, and so can't speak to its merits or demerits, but have heard a lot of buzz around it recently. As much as i really enjoy FP, I don't think it has more than 1% of the market share of software engineering. And I've been hearing the "heard a lot of buzz around it recently" for more than 10 years.
- Faark 7y ago
  The question isn't if OOP or FP will win, but what mix of both is best. A lot of old OOP languages have added features that move them more towards FP. Out of the top of my head C# got E.g. extension methods, lambdas and many ways to be less mutable or pass multiple values around. The bit of programming history i was allowed to experience most definitively became more functional.
  - mises 7y ago
    This is exactly it. The question is not "which will take over the world". Both can contribute useful features in various situations, and this is why I like languages that let me use what is best in each situation.

by mises 7y ago

vhb 7y ago

> Wouldn't this violate the "encapsulation" pillar of OOP? As far as I know, it's always taught with encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism being its three pillars. Encapsulation is "if you have a state, you should encapsulate it". It does not ask you to have a state (even less a mutable one). I quite often use object to represent a logical piece of code, without any attributes. > I'm not sure functional programming has lost yet. I haven't worked with it personally, and so can't speak to its merits or demerits, but have heard a lot of buzz around it recently. As much as i really enjoy FP, I don't think it has more than 1% of the market share of software engineering. And I've been hearing the "heard a lot of buzz around it recently" for more than 10 years.

Faark 7y ago
The question isn't if OOP or FP will win, but what mix of both is best. A lot of old OOP languages have added features that move them more towards FP. Out of the top of my head C# got E.g. extension methods, lambdas and many ways to be less mutable or pass multiple values around. The bit of programming history i was allowed to experience most definitively became more functional.
- mises 7y ago
  This is exactly it. The question is not "which will take over the world". Both can contribute useful features in various situations, and this is why I like languages that let me use what is best in each situation.