> OOP is not at odds with FP. You don't need to tell me that. I'm a bit shocked that you haven't seen a discussion on the "virtues" of functional programming

> OOP is not at odds with FP. You don't need to tell me that. I'm a bit shocked that you haven't seen a discussion on the "virtues" of functional programming and "evils" of object oriented programming (and vice versa) here. If you truly haven't seen it, you might soon enough. > Anyway, the point im trying to make is, irrespective of if the programmer is working with a type system or not [...] Everything after this is one of the arguments in favor of static typing, and I've read variations of it for years. There are just as many, and just as old, counterarguments. I wish there was a way to conclusively prove which type system is truly better, if only to put that discussion to rest and for the industry to converge upon that type system. And then we'll be able to focus on other things. Until then, this is mostly a matter of opinion, which is why... > I don't think my views on it ever will. ... Neither will almost anyone else's, there's no absolutely compelling reason to.