3 ms·

Interesting. Can you expand on how this is similar to/different from a functional approach? i.e. using types & values to define and hold data respectively, an

Interesting. Can you expand on how this is similar to/different from a functional approach? i.e. using types & values to define and hold data respectively, and functions to define the logic/transformations that apply among types.

codethief 4y ago
To me this sounds very much like functional programming as well despite the fact that in OP's link it is said that > Distinguish data-oriented programming from functional and OO programming I mean, if code & data are separate and there is no state, there's no other option left in the code separation vs. stateless/stateful (<> mutations) 2×2 matrix other than functional programming. The 2×2=4 options are: procedural (data and code separate, mutations allowed), object-oriented (data and code not separate, mutations allowed), functional (data and code separate, no mutations/state), and a fourth option (data and code not separate (i.e. still classes), but no mutations/state) which Gary Bernhardt jokingly calls FauxO, see minutes 10:21-13:31 of his talk about Boundaries: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/boundaries https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/boundaries
- spinningslate 4y ago
  > To me this sounds very much like functional programming as well despite the fact that in OP's link it is said that >> Distinguish data-oriented programming from functional and OO programming Yes, that was the basis of my question. The book description also states: > In DOP, you maintain application data in persistent generic data structures separated from the program’s code. You use general-purpose functions to manipulate the data without mutating it. Which seems a lot like functional programming. The use of 'persistent' is perhaps interesting, though there's nothing inherent in FP that excludes persistence obviously.

3 ms·

Interesting. Can you expand on how this is similar to/different from a functional approach? i.e. using types & values to define and hold data respectively, an

by spinningslate 4y ago

codethief 4y ago
To me this sounds very much like functional programming as well despite the fact that in OP's link it is said that > Distinguish data-oriented programming from functional and OO programming I mean, if code & data are separate and there is no state, there's no other option left in the code separation vs. stateless/stateful (<> mutations) 2×2 matrix other than functional programming. The 2×2=4 options are: procedural (data and code separate, mutations allowed), object-oriented (data and code not separate, mutations allowed), functional (data and code separate, no mutations/state), and a fourth option (data and code not separate (i.e. still classes), but no mutations/state) which Gary Bernhardt jokingly calls FauxO, see minutes 10:21-13:31 of his talk about Boundaries: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/boundaries https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/boundaries
- spinningslate 4y ago
  > To me this sounds very much like functional programming as well despite the fact that in OP's link it is said that >> Distinguish data-oriented programming from functional and OO programming Yes, that was the basis of my question. The book description also states: > In DOP, you maintain application data in persistent generic data structures separated from the program’s code. You use general-purpose functions to manipulate the data without mutating it. Which seems a lot like functional programming. The use of 'persistent' is perhaps interesting, though there's nothing inherent in FP that excludes persistence obviously.