3 ms·

>Because we are COMPARING OOP with other forms I cannot stress this enough: I am _NOT_ comparing OOP with other forms (in a general sense). I have corrected yo

>Because we are COMPARING OOP with other forms I cannot stress this enough: I am _NOT_ comparing OOP with other forms (in a general sense). I have corrected you repeatedly on this (and pointed out how it is straw-man). My claim that `noun.verb` does not differ from `verb(noun)` in terms of modularity is _not_ that same as the (much broader) claim that OOP is isomorphic to FP. I have never made the latter claim, nor do I believe it to be true [1]. I understand that it does not behoove you to address my argument in good faith, but at some point we have to stop running in circles. Maybe you just misunderstood what I was attempting to say? (this is me giving you a chance to save face) [1] If I were pressed to describe the relationship between OOP and FP, I would say they are complimentary approaches to designing software (in reference to the expression problem). I _wouldn't_ go so far as to say they are incompatible with one another: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3949618/are-fp-and-oo-orthogonal https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3949618/are-fp-and-oo-or... (as a matter of sheer coincidence many of the answers also discuss OOP and mutability)

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>My claim that `noun.verb` does not differ from `verb(noun)` in terms of modularity is _not_ that same as the (much broader) claim that OOP is isomorphic to FP. I have never made the latter claim, nor do I believe it to be true [1]. Yes but the context of the entire thread is OOP. The semantic claim is made in that context. Also intuitively everyone who reads that will think noun.verb is OOP and verb(noun) is not. It's more like you moved the goal posts. This also contradicts your claim of FP being different from OOP despite semantic equivalence. If there was only a semantic equivalence between noun.verb and verb(noun) then this implies OOP and FP are isomorphic. There is no other way to call functions or methods in either case and therefore they are the same under this misguided logic. >Maybe you just misunderstood what I was attempting to say? (this is me giving you a chance to save face) Save face from what? The thousands of people watching this conversation? I don't even care... this is the internet. Nothing was misunderstood by me. You're the one that's misunderstanding. >If I were pressed to describe the relationship between OOP and FP, I would say they are complimentary approaches to designing software (in reference to the expression problem). I _wouldn't_ go so far as to say they are incompatible with one another: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3949618/are-fp-and-oo-or.. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3949618/are-fp-and-oo-or.... (as a matter of sheer coincidence many of the answers also discuss OOP and mutability) The expression problem is the same problem in FP and OOP according to your semantic equivalence logic. Simply rewriting noun.verb into verb(noun)and vice versa makes both data and operation problems exist in all forms of programming ONLY when values are immutable. Another way to put it is that FP/immutability solves the expression problem by allowing you to change between the two styles of organization. When OOP is immutable the two approaches are not orthogonal, they become parallel or identical. It is only when mutability is forced by only allowing member functions that mutate values rather then return results does the expression problem begin to change. This is when both design paradigms actually change and the dichotomy of the expression problem becomes apparent in the context of OOP and FP. Stack overflow is even less credible than a medium blog post. There's no reason to resort to what you perceive to be authority to dictate what OOP and FP is. I don't even believe there's an officially sourced definition. All you need to do is take what humans as a majority intuitively understand as OOP and translate that into english. Likely when you ask a typical layman to translate his own intuition he'll get it wrong like the teeming millions on the internet. Just use logic to translate the ludicrous consequences of various "proposed" definitions to see which are valid.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  You haven't responded which I presume means you've finally been enlightened.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

>My claim that `noun.verb` does not differ from `verb(noun)` in terms of modularity is _not_ that same as the (much broader) claim that OOP is isomorphic to FP. I have never made the latter claim, nor do I believe it to be true [1]. Yes but the context of the entire thread is OOP. The semantic claim is made in that context. Also intuitively everyone who reads that will think noun.verb is OOP and verb(noun) is not. It's more like you moved the goal posts. This also contradicts your claim of FP being different from OOP despite semantic equivalence. If there was only a semantic equivalence between noun.verb and verb(noun) then this implies OOP and FP are isomorphic. There is no other way to call functions or methods in either case and therefore they are the same under this misguided logic. >Maybe you just misunderstood what I was attempting to say? (this is me giving you a chance to save face) Save face from what? The thousands of people watching this conversation? I don't even care... this is the internet. Nothing was misunderstood by me. You're the one that's misunderstanding. >If I were pressed to describe the relationship between OOP and FP, I would say they are complimentary approaches to designing software (in reference to the expression problem). I _wouldn't_ go so far as to say they are incompatible with one another: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3949618/are-fp-and-oo-or.. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3949618/are-fp-and-oo-or.... (as a matter of sheer coincidence many of the answers also discuss OOP and mutability) The expression problem is the same problem in FP and OOP according to your semantic equivalence logic. Simply rewriting noun.verb into verb(noun)and vice versa makes both data and operation problems exist in all forms of programming ONLY when values are immutable. Another way to put it is that FP/immutability solves the expression problem by allowing you to change between the two styles of organization. When OOP is immutable the two approaches are not orthogonal, they become parallel or identical. It is only when mutability is forced by only allowing member functions that mutate values rather then return results does the expression problem begin to change. This is when both design paradigms actually change and the dichotomy of the expression problem becomes apparent in the context of OOP and FP. Stack overflow is even less credible than a medium blog post. There's no reason to resort to what you perceive to be authority to dictate what OOP and FP is. I don't even believe there's an officially sourced definition. All you need to do is take what humans as a majority intuitively understand as OOP and translate that into english. Likely when you ask a typical layman to translate his own intuition he'll get it wrong like the teeming millions on the internet. Just use logic to translate the ludicrous consequences of various "proposed" definitions to see which are valid.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
You haven't responded which I presume means you've finally been enlightened.