6 ms·

To this point, JS has been very careful to not get in the way of functional programming, as it doesn't really try to stick to a specific paradigm. There is even

by snek 7y ago

To this point, JS has been very careful to not get in the way of functional programming, as it doesn't really try to stick to a specific paradigm. There is even a proposal to add pipielines: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator. Personally, I think forcing yourself to a specific paradigm is a waste of energy. I've tend to just write code that best expresses my intention. Sometimes the code turns out more oop, sometimes it turns out more fp, and often it's more of a mix.

dnautics 7y ago
> Sometimes the code turns out more oop I think it's misleading to think of FP as being necessarily opposed to OOP. While FP is very much in opposition to the stroustropian style of OOP in syntax and execution (which is what people mean these days), if you're going back to smalltalk-type message passing objects, arguably some FPs have the hands down best implementations of OOP.
- snek 7y ago
  Oh yes, i meant that sometimes a paradigm is unused, not that one prevents the other.
- dnautics 7y ago
  I should give an example. Python: class MyClass: def __init__(self): self.name = "" def setname(self, new_name): self.name = new_name def getname(self): return self.name Usage: obj = MyClass() obj.setname("joe") obj.getname() #==> "joe" Elixir: defmodule MyAgent do def init(), do: Agent.start_link(fn -> "" end) def setname(obj, new_name), do: Agent.update(obj, fn _ -> new_name end) def getname(obj), do: Agent.get(obj, &(&1)) end usage: {:ok, obj} = MyAgent.init() MyAgent.setname(obj, "joe") MyAgent.getname(obj) #==> "joe" Honestly, superficially, the difference is minor (obviously, under the hood they're way different; ironically I think the Elixir form is far more "explicit" than the python form)
- mrdoops 7y ago
  For sure. If there are two flavors of OOP: the Imperative OOP we're familiar with (Ruby, Java, Python, etc.) and the Message oriented variety that Alan Kay described, then Elixir/Erlang are more the Message Oriented flavor. While you can write either flavor in most languages (even Elixir if you abuse ETS), concurrency's requirements for immutability and run-time support start becoming distinguishing factors.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    I think actually Ruby is Alan Kay style but with an imperative surface implementation, itonically
    - overgard 7y ago
      Kinda. I think what Ruby is missing is how minimalist Smalltalk is and how many of the primitives in Smalltalk are implemented in itself. To give you an example of what I'm talking about, in Smalltalk an if statement is implemented by sending a message to a boolean, like: someBool ifTrue: [ "some block to execute" ]. In that context, either the "True" object receives the message and executes the block, or the "False" object receives the message and doesn't execute it. (Or even some user defined object that just happens to have an ifTrue: message handler). (Sorry I might be a little off on the syntax and exact details, my Smalltalk is rusty) Loops and such are also similar. Granted most of these things probably end up being implemented in native code on a practical level for performance, but conceptually it's a very small language. Most of the standard library and IDE is written in itself. Ruby definitely has a lot of flexibility, but it also has way more built-ins and much more separation between "interpreter code" and "user code" I think this is what people are missing when they bring up the point that messages and method calls seem very similar. In a practical sense yes, but the smalltalk style message system is more about messages being a fundamental building block of the entire system.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Loops and such are also similar. While “if” doesn't work that way in Ruby, loops do (there is a for..in statement, but it's syntax sugar for a call to #each, and not idiomatic to use it anyway.) Python does a lot of that; putting loosely C-style syntax as sugar around method calls (which themselves support more general message passing patterns than Java-style method calls.)

by snek 7y ago

dnautics 7y ago

> Sometimes the code turns out more oop I think it's misleading to think of FP as being necessarily opposed to OOP. While FP is very much in opposition to the stroustropian style of OOP in syntax and execution (which is what people mean these days), if you're going back to smalltalk-type message passing objects, arguably some FPs have the hands down best implementations of OOP.

snek 7y ago
Oh yes, i meant that sometimes a paradigm is unused, not that one prevents the other.
dnautics 7y ago
I should give an example. Python: class MyClass: def __init__(self): self.name = "" def setname(self, new_name): self.name = new_name def getname(self): return self.name Usage: obj = MyClass() obj.setname("joe") obj.getname() #==> "joe" Elixir: defmodule MyAgent do def init(), do: Agent.start_link(fn -> "" end) def setname(obj, new_name), do: Agent.update(obj, fn _ -> new_name end) def getname(obj), do: Agent.get(obj, &(&1)) end usage: {:ok, obj} = MyAgent.init() MyAgent.setname(obj, "joe") MyAgent.getname(obj) #==> "joe" Honestly, superficially, the difference is minor (obviously, under the hood they're way different; ironically I think the Elixir form is far more "explicit" than the python form)
mrdoops 7y ago
For sure. If there are two flavors of OOP: the Imperative OOP we're familiar with (Ruby, Java, Python, etc.) and the Message oriented variety that Alan Kay described, then Elixir/Erlang are more the Message Oriented flavor. While you can write either flavor in most languages (even Elixir if you abuse ETS), concurrency's requirements for immutability and run-time support start becoming distinguishing factors.
- dnautics 7y ago
  I think actually Ruby is Alan Kay style but with an imperative surface implementation, itonically
  - overgard 7y ago
    Kinda. I think what Ruby is missing is how minimalist Smalltalk is and how many of the primitives in Smalltalk are implemented in itself. To give you an example of what I'm talking about, in Smalltalk an if statement is implemented by sending a message to a boolean, like: someBool ifTrue: [ "some block to execute" ]. In that context, either the "True" object receives the message and executes the block, or the "False" object receives the message and doesn't execute it. (Or even some user defined object that just happens to have an ifTrue: message handler). (Sorry I might be a little off on the syntax and exact details, my Smalltalk is rusty) Loops and such are also similar. Granted most of these things probably end up being implemented in native code on a practical level for performance, but conceptually it's a very small language. Most of the standard library and IDE is written in itself. Ruby definitely has a lot of flexibility, but it also has way more built-ins and much more separation between "interpreter code" and "user code" I think this is what people are missing when they bring up the point that messages and method calls seem very similar. In a practical sense yes, but the smalltalk style message system is more about messages being a fundamental building block of the entire system.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Loops and such are also similar. While “if” doesn't work that way in Ruby, loops do (there is a for..in statement, but it's syntax sugar for a call to #each, and not idiomatic to use it anyway.) Python does a lot of that; putting loosely C-style syntax as sugar around method calls (which themselves support more general message passing patterns than Java-style method calls.)