3 ms·

I'm ripping a quote from another HN user the last OO/FP discussion I read on so apologies if you see this and are like, "Hey! I said that!" buuuut: OO says: "

• bmitc 6y ago
  I think languages like F# and Racket get it right, because multiple paradigms are available to you. I like F#’s stance on functional-first programming. There are times in which you want to expose the underlying types and there are times you do not. When I recently started a ray tracer implementation, it was a good example of this. The vector, color, point, transform, world, camera, etc. types where all readily implemented by records and discriminated unions which properly isolated but exposed the types. However, for the matrix library, I chose to use F#’s Array.Parallel library and thus a 1D array as the underlying implementation, and this was a perfect use case for using a class. I wanted to hide the implementation of the matrices from the user of the type and encapsulate the internal behavior, only exposing a clean API. Even in that case, the matrix type was immutable because the operations on matrices would simply return new matrices. I think F#’s acceptance of multiple paradigms is really the way to go.
• colllectorof 6y ago
  Encapsulation has nothing to do with hiding stuff. It is the idea that an object is effectively defined by its externally observable behavior.
  • sodapopcan 6y ago
    I was being cheeky—I regret it.
• mmis1000 6y ago
  Probably "State is hard—let's eliminate it!" is better if it is possible. Lots of states just shouldn't exist at first place because they are clearly derivations of some other state.