3 ms·

How long has the author used Python? OO, while responsible for much of the footguns, is also responsible for an enormous amount of Python's expressive power. Be

How long has the author used Python? OO, while responsible for much of the footguns, is also responsible for an enormous amount of Python's expressive power. Being able iterate or key into arbitrary objects as if they were lists or dictionaries is enormously powerful, but all of that structure is OO based. It's a huge part of what "pythonic" means. > If you've taken the pure-FP/hexagonal-architecture pill Writing software is not something you take a conceptual "pill" for. You learn new tools that you add to your toolchest and use at your own discretion. Tools which purport to be able to displace a whole arena of otherwise stable, mature, and high productivity tools better be at least comparable if not significantly better to encourage upgrade. FP as a tool definitely comes in handy for quite a few use cases. FP as an ideology? Not so much. Regarding the latter, I'm getting a little sick of the FP chauvinism that that pretends that pre-existing software and how it was written is obviously inferior to the new, purely FP way without any real persuasive evidence. Code that's written in an overly FP oriented way is no less immune to the same codebase diseases that code written in an overly OO oriented way is. It's the map-territory problem all over again.

Geminidog 6y ago
That’s because the ideologists operate based on intuition rather then identifying the exact reason why one paradigm is better. OO is bad because it promotes writing logic with free variables and context. Logic that relies on free variables and context is inherently less modular. Lack of modularity is the root of all structural technical debt. While FP doesn’t force someone to eliminate context or free variables it certainly does not promote writing logic that includes it by default. This generally leads to more modular code. Hence the reason why FP just "feels" better to practitioners and leads to people promoting it without clear reasoning. This in turn makes the promotion of FP seem "ideological." Maximizing modularity in code requires greater restrictions then the ones FP provides, but FP in general is heading in the right direction.

Geminidog 6y ago

That’s because the ideologists operate based on intuition rather then identifying the exact reason why one paradigm is better. OO is bad because it promotes writing logic with free variables and context. Logic that relies on free variables and context is inherently less modular. Lack of modularity is the root of all structural technical debt. While FP doesn’t force someone to eliminate context or free variables it certainly does not promote writing logic that includes it by default. This generally leads to more modular code. Hence the reason why FP just "feels" better to practitioners and leads to people promoting it without clear reasoning. This in turn makes the promotion of FP seem "ideological." Maximizing modularity in code requires greater restrictions then the ones FP provides, but FP in general is heading in the right direction.