5 ms·

My whole point - the one I've been trying to make in every comment in this thread - is that if you want to talk about "FP" as a whole (or "OOP" as a whole), you

by zodiac 7y ago

My whole point - the one I've been trying to make in every comment in this thread - is that if you want to talk about "FP" as a whole (or "OOP" as a whole), you have to explicitly define it. Relying on intuition or culture is not enough. Like, I use what I think of as FP features much more than I do what I think of as OOP features. In languages commonly thought of as multi-paradigm, say python, I have lots of higher-order functions, and lots of functions which are just compositions of others (I don't write point-free style though). I try hard to avoid implementation inheritance ("OOP inheritance") if possible. I know people who do the exact opposite thing in python. But if I write down the definition of "FP" for me and you write down your definition, I 99% guarantee you they'll be different in a substantive way. So I agree with many of the points you make in the links about how composition works in (what you think of as) FP vs OOP. But I view that as claims about individual design patterns or language features (and very big, fundamental design patterns / language features), not as things called "FP" and "OOP".

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>My whole point - the one I've been trying to make in every comment in this thread - is that if you want to talk about "FP" as a whole (or "OOP" as a whole), you have to explicitly define it. Relying on intuition or culture is not enough. I am aware this is your point. I understand your point. I don't know about you, but I find a conversation of your definition of a term vs. my definition of a term to be uninteresting. Arguing about semantics doesn't matter in my opinion. >You define "FP" to be (what I claim is) a way that's too narrow. Your splitting the design space into different paradigms is (I claim) not substantiated. >So I agree with many of the points you make in the links about how composition works in (what you think of as) FP vs OOP. But I view that as claims about individual design patterns or language features (and very big, fundamental design patterns / language features), not as things called "FP" and "OOP". Your own statements show that you have already derived from my writing what you think I define as FP and OOP. You also implied something about what you believe I defined as "design" saying that I splitted it into "spaces" of different paradigms. So why is there a need for me to explicitly define a definition for you when you already derived it from my writing? Is this your whole point? That your definition of OOP, FP and design is different from my definition but you understand what I'm talking about? Or is there another point you're trying to make? Just to refocus: The topic of our thread is basically the rationale behind why I draw the line at function composition as the main point of FP. Given my definitions of OOP, FP and Design, do you understand why I have this rationale? And if you understand my rationale do you agree with it or disagree?
- zodiac 7y ago
  > Is this your whole point? That your definition of OOP, FP and design is different from my definition but you understand what I'm talking about? Or is there another point you're trying to make? Let C1 be the following claim: "function composition is better behaved than object composition and procedure composition". Let C2 be the following claim: "the most important part of FP is function composition". I'm saying that you've provided arguments for C1 (that I mostly agree with). So let's say that I agree with C1. However, you haven't shown why C1 => C2, and I disagree with C2. So to answer your question, I understand your rationale for C1 (and I agree with it), but I don't understand your rationale for C2, or for why C1 => C2.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    >Let C1 be the following claim: "function composition is better behaved than object composition and procedure composition". >Let C2 be the following claim: "the most important part of FP is function composition". C9 = functional programming is better designed than OOP and procedural programming. I claim C1 to be true (you agree.) I claim C2 to be true. I claim C9 to be true. I do not claim C1 => C2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reasoning for C2: C3 = The primary task of High level programming languages is to simplify assembly instructions. C4 = The simplification of assembly instructions is done through Composition. C5 = Different High level programming languages/paradigms simplify assembly primitives in different ways. C6 = High level programming languages/paradigms are, in essence just different ways of composing assembly primitives. (C3, C4, C5) => C6 C7 = If programming languages are all just different ways of composing assembly primitives than how they compose assembly primitives is the most important part of the language and the main differentiator between one high level language and another high level language. C8 = function composition is the primary form of composition for functional programming. (C6, C7, C8) => C2 --------------------------------------- In short: - High level programming languages/paradigms are, in essence just different ways of composing assembly primitives. - If programming languages are all just different ways of composing assembly primitives than how they compose assembly primitives is the most important part of the language and the main differentiator between one high level language and another high level language. - function composition is the primary form of composition for functional programming. Therefore: the most important part of FP is function composition. ------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reasoning for C9: C8 = "A Design for a programming language" is just another phrase for "a method of composition for a programming language". (C1, C8) => C9 ----------------------------------------------- In short: - function composition is better behaved than object composition and procedure composition - "A Design for a programming language" is just another word for "a method of composition for a programming language" Therefore: functional programming is better designed than OOP and procedural programming. ------------------------------------------------ I like this format, thanks for introducing it. I think it allows us to clearly see which axioms we disagree with and need to think about.

by zodiac 7y ago

crimsonalucard 7y ago

>My whole point - the one I've been trying to make in every comment in this thread - is that if you want to talk about "FP" as a whole (or "OOP" as a whole), you have to explicitly define it. Relying on intuition or culture is not enough. I am aware this is your point. I understand your point. I don't know about you, but I find a conversation of your definition of a term vs. my definition of a term to be uninteresting. Arguing about semantics doesn't matter in my opinion. >You define "FP" to be (what I claim is) a way that's too narrow. Your splitting the design space into different paradigms is (I claim) not substantiated. >So I agree with many of the points you make in the links about how composition works in (what you think of as) FP vs OOP. But I view that as claims about individual design patterns or language features (and very big, fundamental design patterns / language features), not as things called "FP" and "OOP". Your own statements show that you have already derived from my writing what you think I define as FP and OOP. You also implied something about what you believe I defined as "design" saying that I splitted it into "spaces" of different paradigms. So why is there a need for me to explicitly define a definition for you when you already derived it from my writing? Is this your whole point? That your definition of OOP, FP and design is different from my definition but you understand what I'm talking about? Or is there another point you're trying to make? Just to refocus: The topic of our thread is basically the rationale behind why I draw the line at function composition as the main point of FP. Given my definitions of OOP, FP and Design, do you understand why I have this rationale? And if you understand my rationale do you agree with it or disagree?

zodiac 7y ago
> Is this your whole point? That your definition of OOP, FP and design is different from my definition but you understand what I'm talking about? Or is there another point you're trying to make? Let C1 be the following claim: "function composition is better behaved than object composition and procedure composition". Let C2 be the following claim: "the most important part of FP is function composition". I'm saying that you've provided arguments for C1 (that I mostly agree with). So let's say that I agree with C1. However, you haven't shown why C1 => C2, and I disagree with C2. So to answer your question, I understand your rationale for C1 (and I agree with it), but I don't understand your rationale for C2, or for why C1 => C2.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >Let C1 be the following claim: "function composition is better behaved than object composition and procedure composition". >Let C2 be the following claim: "the most important part of FP is function composition". C9 = functional programming is better designed than OOP and procedural programming. I claim C1 to be true (you agree.) I claim C2 to be true. I claim C9 to be true. I do not claim C1 => C2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reasoning for C2: C3 = The primary task of High level programming languages is to simplify assembly instructions. C4 = The simplification of assembly instructions is done through Composition. C5 = Different High level programming languages/paradigms simplify assembly primitives in different ways. C6 = High level programming languages/paradigms are, in essence just different ways of composing assembly primitives. (C3, C4, C5) => C6 C7 = If programming languages are all just different ways of composing assembly primitives than how they compose assembly primitives is the most important part of the language and the main differentiator between one high level language and another high level language. C8 = function composition is the primary form of composition for functional programming. (C6, C7, C8) => C2 --------------------------------------- In short: - High level programming languages/paradigms are, in essence just different ways of composing assembly primitives. - If programming languages are all just different ways of composing assembly primitives than how they compose assembly primitives is the most important part of the language and the main differentiator between one high level language and another high level language. - function composition is the primary form of composition for functional programming. Therefore: the most important part of FP is function composition. ------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reasoning for C9: C8 = "A Design for a programming language" is just another phrase for "a method of composition for a programming language". (C1, C8) => C9 ----------------------------------------------- In short: - function composition is better behaved than object composition and procedure composition - "A Design for a programming language" is just another word for "a method of composition for a programming language" Therefore: functional programming is better designed than OOP and procedural programming. ------------------------------------------------ I like this format, thanks for introducing it. I think it allows us to clearly see which axioms we disagree with and need to think about.