3 ms·
> "The author seems to be implying that we have a hard choice ahead of us with no middleground: We can either accept object oriented programming, or we can turn
by autokad 6y ago
> "The author seems to be implying that we have a hard choice ahead of us with no middleground: We can either accept object oriented programming, or we can turn to pure FP."
I disagree. I dont think that is what the author was saying at all, not even a little bit:
"100% pure functional programing doesn’t work. Even 98% pure functional programming doesn’t work. But if the slider between functional purity and 1980s BASIC-style imperative messiness is kicked down a few notches — say to 85% — then it really does work. ... It’s possible, and a good idea, to develop large parts of a system in purely functional code. But someone has to write the messy parts that interact with the outside world."
- implicit 6y agoThe problem is the way the author instantly jumps from "98% pure functional programming doesn't work" to "you should use OOP." In order to bridge the gap, you have to make some pretty terrible assumptions: If your code is not OO, it must be FP. If your code is FP, it must be pure. Therefore, If your code cannot be pure, it must be OO.