3 ms·

This seems congruent to the object<>closure equivalence. Nevertheless the resulting code reads quite differently. Any kind of early binding to dependencies can

This seems congruent to the object<>closure equivalence. Nevertheless the resulting code reads quite differently. Any kind of early binding to dependencies can read like a “COME FROM” at times (especially debugging time), and all that extra state burns memory. In Ruby one of my favourite calling conventions is to pass self to the methods, rather than the constructor, of collaborator objects.

eru 5y ago
> This seems congruent to the object<>closure equivalence. Nevertheless the resulting code reads quite differently. To write functional code that looks a bit more like OOP, I guess you want 'open recursion'. Open recursion is what allows you to do the equivalent of overwriting methods in subclasses when doing FP. See eg https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ralf.hinze/talks/Open.pdf https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ralf.hinze/talks/Open.pdf or https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/08/26/what-is-open-recursion/ https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/08/26/what-is-open-r...