5 ms·

Yes. I think we're saying the same thing. By "link" I specifically meant data, not functions. Because everything is potentially visible, FP requires you to kee

Yes. I think we're saying the same thing. By "link" I specifically meant data, not functions. Because everything is potentially visible, FP requires you to keep track of data structures in your head -- sometimes complex data structures with non-trivial relationships to other data structures. Of course, there are methods to keep it simple -- starting small and growing as needed comes to mind first -- but if you're writing FP in a legacy environment with lots of nasty complex data structures you have a big headache. This would not be true in the same data environment with a well-constructed OO tier. [insert discussion here about what makes a well-constructed OO tier] Or maybe I missed it. If I did, please straighten me out.

fogus 16y ago
but if you're writing FP in a legacy environment with lots of nasty complex data structures you have a big headache. This would not be true in the same data environment with a well-constructed OO tier. With fp languages the tendency is to think in data and abstract via functions. If your functional tier is well-constructed then all is good right? [insert discussion here about what makes a well-constructed functional tier] ;-)
jshen 16y ago
Your comparing "nasty" fp with "well-structured" OO, but let's ignore that for the moment. My experience is the opposite. I run into a lot of nasty legacy OO code (think java not smalltalk) and it's very hard for me to refactor it piecemeal. I've been doing a clojure project at work for the past 6 months and it's surprisingly easy to refactor side effect free code.
nickik 16y ago
In modern Languages you have namespaces and namespaces let solve the problem your discribing.
moomba 16y ago
Pretty much all recent functional languages deal with oo programming by using multimethods and namespaces. This takes care of the problem you're talking about in a beyer way than most oo languages.

fogus 16y ago

but if you're writing FP in a legacy environment with lots of nasty complex data structures you have a big headache. This would not be true in the same data environment with a well-constructed OO tier. With fp languages the tendency is to think in data and abstract via functions. If your functional tier is well-constructed then all is good right? [insert discussion here about what makes a well-constructed functional tier] ;-)

jshen 16y ago

Your comparing "nasty" fp with "well-structured" OO, but let's ignore that for the moment. My experience is the opposite. I run into a lot of nasty legacy OO code (think java not smalltalk) and it's very hard for me to refactor it piecemeal. I've been doing a clojure project at work for the past 6 months and it's surprisingly easy to refactor side effect free code.

nickik 16y ago

In modern Languages you have namespaces and namespaces let solve the problem your discribing.

moomba 16y ago

Pretty much all recent functional languages deal with oo programming by using multimethods and namespaces. This takes care of the problem you're talking about in a beyer way than most oo languages.