2 ms·

I'm being somewhat obtuse here, but I've never understood that. Why would I be more likely to mutate state in sending a message to an object than I would be ap

• Smaug123 5y ago
  Long history and baggage of object orientation, I suppose. There's nothing inherently mutable about dot-notation (indeed, F# uses it for accessors on immutable records as well as for "proper" object-orientation), but lots of object-oriented languages use the dot for accessing objects, and lots of object-oriented idioms involve mutation. If you're going to send a message to an object, you do kind of expect something to happen, and that's often a mutation somewhere. Having said that, I actually don't know the history of the dot operator in any depth (https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/89031/what-is-the-origin-of-dot-notation https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/89031/what-is-the-ori... suggests it arose in Simula).
• Zababa 5y ago
  > Why would I be more likely to mutate state in sending a message to an object than I would be applying a procedure to a struct? I think most people don't think about objects in terms of sending a message to them, but in terms of calling a method on them. OOP in JS, currently, revolves a lot around mutable objects. JS itself revolves a lot around mutability. Some people are trying to change that, at least by getting proper support for the alternative. The pipeline operator is part of that.
• nsonha 5y ago
  If you don't have state what do you need an object for? Would it make more sense to have a "free" function instead?