4 ms·
> But the seemingly arising "Haskell religion" is at least as mislead as the OOP-religion that held mainstream in stranglehold for a long time. I wanted to say
by misja111 4y ago
> But the seemingly arising "Haskell religion" is at least as mislead as the OOP-religion that held mainstream in stranglehold for a long time.
I wanted to say the same but you were faster than me. The article reminded me a lot of the design patterns fad in the OOP world: that compulsion to make everything abstract and reusable even if there's no use for it yet. But hey, at some point it might be needed and then it would be great!
Of course there are some cases where you really want to be ahead of what might come , e.g. public library api's, but those are rare.
- celeritascelery 4y agoI have heard is said that both OOP and functional design are best applied only about 80% of the time. More than that and you are overfitting the method to things where it applies poorly.
- pencilguin 4y agoEvery big enough system has a few parts that would fit OOP, and a few parts that would fit FP. If your language supports those, then great, use those for them. The overwhelming majority of problems do not fit OO, and using OOP on them makes a mess. Similarly, FP.