3 ms·

Why can't pattern matching fit in OOP? It's not really functional, despite being in most functional languages. It's just sugar for more lengthy imperative condi

• pjmlp 7y ago
  Indeed, Objective Caml is a multi-paradigm language with pattern matching.
  • totalperspectiv 7y ago
    And Scala. The poster child of oop + functional
• agumonkey 7y ago
  Because part of the OOP mindset is to never dig into an object and only interact with a flat interface. From the few that I remember from OO articles in the 00s. Now technically yes all FP idioms are just simple operations below that can be used. And they are.. python, js have destructuring which is a first stage pattern matching.
  • zozbot234 7y ago
    Destructuring ("digging into" a type) makes little sense with open records and sums, which OOP introduced into common use. The "closed" ('final', 'sealed' etc.) case where destructuring makes sense was disregarded for some time because it was thought that extensibility was always the appropriate choice. Today, "open" extensibility mechanisms are considered a bit problematic because it's never really clear what invariants they should preserve, so maintaining correctness is an issue. A "closed" interface makes it essier to specify related invariants.
• verttii 7y ago
  It's typical in statically typed functional languages to match against Algebraic data type value constructors. These ADTs have a fixed amount of variants, which makes it suitable to do a clean pattern match. ADTs don't exist in OOP. It gets more complicated to do matches against classes whose abstractions are not really decomposable so easily.