3 ms·

I will take a stab at it. > Functors are basically an Object with a internal state changing method in typical OOP terms. If I was writing a functional languag

I will take a stab at it. > Functors are basically an Object with a internal state changing method in typical OOP terms. If I was writing a functional language, in an oop language, I could implement functors at least partially with an Object with an internal state changing method. I could not model/implement an Object with an internal state changing method in a fp language via a functor. The main issue with the author's statement is that it makes a claim of approximate equivalence and does not back it up with additional evidence or examples.

newswasboring 6y ago
> I could not model/implement an Object with an internal state changing method in a fp language via a functor. I don't think anyone claimed that. > I could implement functors at least partially with an Object with an internal state changing method. Now we are getting somewhere. You said partially, what features are being left out?
- davorak 6y ago
  >> I could not model/implement an Object with an internal state changing method in a fp language via a functor. > I don't think anyone claimed that. I was not trying to refute the opposite claim. I was giving info on the differences of functors and the referenced oop feature. My points run somewhat counter to the authors claim "Functors are basically an Object with a internal state changing method in typical OOP terms." or at least what I think some reads walk away with. Hard to say what is in the author's head with the provided text. > Now we are getting somewhere. You said partially, what features are being left out? I did not mean to imply features would be left out but rather I would use more than the one oop feature, "an Object with an internal state changing method", to implement functors.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    > I did not mean to imply features would be left out but rather I would use more than the one oop feature Awesome, we are still getting somewhere. What other oop feature would you be using
    - davorak 6y ago
      > Awesome, we are still getting somewhere. What other oop feature would you be using I'm glad you think it was productive so far. I am not convinced it is a productive use of our time to continue/extend the thought exercise though.

newswasboring 6y ago

> I could not model/implement an Object with an internal state changing method in a fp language via a functor. I don't think anyone claimed that. > I could implement functors at least partially with an Object with an internal state changing method. Now we are getting somewhere. You said partially, what features are being left out?

davorak 6y ago
>> I could not model/implement an Object with an internal state changing method in a fp language via a functor. > I don't think anyone claimed that. I was not trying to refute the opposite claim. I was giving info on the differences of functors and the referenced oop feature. My points run somewhat counter to the authors claim "Functors are basically an Object with a internal state changing method in typical OOP terms." or at least what I think some reads walk away with. Hard to say what is in the author's head with the provided text. > Now we are getting somewhere. You said partially, what features are being left out? I did not mean to imply features would be left out but rather I would use more than the one oop feature, "an Object with an internal state changing method", to implement functors.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  > I did not mean to imply features would be left out but rather I would use more than the one oop feature Awesome, we are still getting somewhere. What other oop feature would you be using
  - davorak 6y ago
    > Awesome, we are still getting somewhere. What other oop feature would you be using I'm glad you think it was productive so far. I am not convinced it is a productive use of our time to continue/extend the thought exercise though.