3 ms·

- High memory usage - Several patterns introduces a lot of boiler code. - It's harder to visualize a OO codebase than a pure FP codebase like Haskell. - Fram

- High memory usage - Several patterns introduces a lot of boiler code. - It's harder to visualize a OO codebase than a pure FP codebase like Haskell. - Frameworks like Spring / Jakarta are overly complex. But I don't mind OO, it's just that after using Haskell and Python, it just feels a little messy.

PaulHoule 4y ago
What kind of stuff have you built in Haskell?
Matthias247 4y ago
> - High memory usage There is nothing about OO does enforce higher memory usage compared to other patterns. In fact it might be better than functional programming, which relies on a lot of closures (which all need heap allocations). The fact that Java does not support value types will require more memory for a certain set of applications than e.g. Go or C# - but that is barely related to OO. > - It's harder to visualize a OO codebase than a pure FP codebase like Haskell. This will be rather subjective. Be sure to have a common understanding with your team about it if you are not the only contributor to a codebase.
- pkolaczk 4y ago
  > There is nothing about OO does enforce higher memory usage compared to other patterns. Many OO languages offer dynamic/virtual dispatch of methods as a primary (and sometimes only) way to do polymorphism. This comes at a non-zero memory cost, because each object needs some additional runtime type information. > In fact it might be better than functional programming, which relies on a lot of closures (which all need heap allocations) Closures do not need heap allocations. Rust has closures and allocates them on the stack (unless you deliberately box them). I don't know Haskell, but I believe it could do the same.
muzani 4y ago
Sounds like the exact use case for Kotlin.
Gibbon1 4y ago
You might find you like C# better than Java then. C# has objects, structs, primitives. Sugar to get rid of boiler plate. And increasingly a lot of functional features.

PaulHoule 4y ago

What kind of stuff have you built in Haskell?

Matthias247 4y ago

> - High memory usage There is nothing about OO does enforce higher memory usage compared to other patterns. In fact it might be better than functional programming, which relies on a lot of closures (which all need heap allocations). The fact that Java does not support value types will require more memory for a certain set of applications than e.g. Go or C# - but that is barely related to OO. > - It's harder to visualize a OO codebase than a pure FP codebase like Haskell. This will be rather subjective. Be sure to have a common understanding with your team about it if you are not the only contributor to a codebase.

pkolaczk 4y ago
> There is nothing about OO does enforce higher memory usage compared to other patterns. Many OO languages offer dynamic/virtual dispatch of methods as a primary (and sometimes only) way to do polymorphism. This comes at a non-zero memory cost, because each object needs some additional runtime type information. > In fact it might be better than functional programming, which relies on a lot of closures (which all need heap allocations) Closures do not need heap allocations. Rust has closures and allocates them on the stack (unless you deliberately box them). I don't know Haskell, but I believe it could do the same.

muzani 4y ago

Sounds like the exact use case for Kotlin.

Gibbon1 4y ago

You might find you like C# better than Java then. C# has objects, structs, primitives. Sugar to get rid of boiler plate. And increasingly a lot of functional features.