5 ms·
> OOP is a great fit for UI frameworks. The biggest UI framework of the past decade is decisively anti-OOP in its philosophy
by akavi 5y ago
> OOP is a great fit for UI frameworks.
The biggest UI framework of the past decade is decisively anti-OOP in its philosophy
- FpUser 5y agoWhat it the name?
- bspammer 5y agohttps://reactjs.org/ https://reactjs.org/
- paragraft 5y agoReact, presumably, with its approach that a UI is well described by nested functions operating on state. It's a good point. I remember long discussions on mailing lists for various FP languages conceding that UI toolkits were the one area where OOP seemed the natural fit. Haven't seen many of those discussions since React emerged.
- FpUser 5y agoAh that one. Sorry but in my book React is an abomination. Speed of developing decent UI in React vs for example something like ages old Delphi is incomparable. The last one wins hands down.
- FpUser 5y ago>" nested functions operating on state." Switch it to a state with the methods and you got your object. Polymorphism here is not a requirement. It is a feature to be used when needed. Some time in the 80s I was doing exactly the same - operating on state with functions. Same shit different color. Programmers just love going on crusades. I find it a waste of time and intolerance breeding ground. Instead of heating the air use whatever the fuck suits one. Just do not stalk other people who happen to have different preferences.
- garethrowlands 5y agoReact
- ianbicking 5y agoI assume you are talking about React. It started fairly OOP. Now it's... something else? It's not functional. IMHO hooks and effects are a crazy form of OOP. It's like some weird dynamic scope data definition.
- eunoia 5y agoHonest question, I’m very curious. Do you still classify React as closer to an OO paradigm than functional? Agreed hooks are… something else.
- ianbicking 5y agoRunning a function and then looking for magical side effects to effectively get multiple return values from that function sure isn't functional. And it shows in how unintuitive it is to reason about hooks and the leakiness of the whole thing. I think it looks functional because it's only easy to reason about if you write functional code. I suppose it tries to solve some of the same problems as OO, like related state and private transitions. But it feels like React itself is the God Object.
- joeldo 5y agoI'm not exactly sure how hooks are related to OOP. Their design was inspired by 'Algebraic Effects' which are more functional in nature than OO. This gives a good breakdown: https://overreacted.io/algebraic-effects-for-the-rest-of-us/ https://overreacted.io/algebraic-effects-for-the-rest-of-us/
- ianbicking 5y agoAh, that does make more sense, and is a language feature I've often thought about. It's usually just a pattern and not a first class feature, but with many problems as a result (many of which React itself encounters). Lots of use of context managers in Python are for accomplishing this. Smalltalk error handlers are like this (different than try/catch). Or Scheme's with-output-to-file... I got the sense that variables that start and end with stars in Common Lisp are used for this, but I was never clear if it was convention or an actual language feature. I think I'd like it in React too if they just hadn't tried to be so clever.