3 ms·

shiffern's example uses the same coding style you use in Clojure. It doesn't feel like stretch to call it FP. Start with a basic data structure (the object in s

shiffern's example uses the same coding style you use in Clojure. It doesn't feel like stretch to call it FP. Start with a basic data structure (the object in shiffern's example would translate to a map in Clojure) and then operate on it with simple functions. (def snake {:name "Sammy" :distance 5 :move-verb "Slither"}) (def horse {:name "Tommy" :distance 45 :move-verb "Gallop"}) (defn move[{:keys [name distance move-verb]}] (println (str (or move-verb "Mov") "ing...")) (println (or name "It") "moved" (or distance 1) "meters")) (move snake) (move horse)

dxbydt 14y ago
or in scala: val snake = Map("name"->"Sammy", "dist"->"5m","move"->" slithers ") val horse = Map("name"->"Tommy", "dist"->"45m","move"->" gallops ") def move(m: Map[String,String]) = println( m("name") + m("move" ) + m("dist") scala> move (snake) Sammy slithers 5m scala> move (horse) Tommy gallops 45m If FP = OO via dictionaries, then yeah, ok :))
- nivertech 14y ago
  The example given by author is very FP and not OOP, since the move function doesn't modify shared state and the only side-effect is output. We use CoffeeScript for node.js and browser client code. I think classes more useful for control patterns, like EventEmitter in node.js, and much less for wrapping of data, as done in traditional Java/C++ -style OOP or ORM models. I'll chip in Erlang (real production-grade code with type-specs, not a short REPL example): -module(animal). -record(animal{ name :: string(), distance :: integer(), move_verb :: string() }). -spec move(animal()) -> ok. move(#animal{name=Name, distance=Distance, move_verb=MoveVerb}) -> io:format("~sing... ~s moved ~b meters~n", [default(MoveVerb, "Mov"), default(Name, "It"), default(Distance,1)]). -spec default(X::any(), Val::any()) -> any(). default(undefined,Val) -> Val. default(X, _) -> X. -spec main() -> ok. main() -> Snake = #animal{name = "Sammy", distance = 5, move_verb = "Slither"}, Horse = #animal{name = "Tommy", distance = 45, move_verb = "Gallop"}, [move(A) || A <- [Snake, Horse]], ok.

dxbydt 14y ago

or in scala: val snake = Map("name"->"Sammy", "dist"->"5m","move"->" slithers ") val horse = Map("name"->"Tommy", "dist"->"45m","move"->" gallops ") def move(m: Map[String,String]) = println( m("name") + m("move" ) + m("dist") scala> move (snake) Sammy slithers 5m scala> move (horse) Tommy gallops 45m If FP = OO via dictionaries, then yeah, ok :))

nivertech 14y ago
The example given by author is very FP and not OOP, since the move function doesn't modify shared state and the only side-effect is output. We use CoffeeScript for node.js and browser client code. I think classes more useful for control patterns, like EventEmitter in node.js, and much less for wrapping of data, as done in traditional Java/C++ -style OOP or ORM models. I'll chip in Erlang (real production-grade code with type-specs, not a short REPL example): -module(animal). -record(animal{ name :: string(), distance :: integer(), move_verb :: string() }). -spec move(animal()) -> ok. move(#animal{name=Name, distance=Distance, move_verb=MoveVerb}) -> io:format("~sing... ~s moved ~b meters~n", [default(MoveVerb, "Mov"), default(Name, "It"), default(Distance,1)]). -spec default(X::any(), Val::any()) -> any(). default(undefined,Val) -> Val. default(X, _) -> X. -spec main() -> ok. main() -> Snake = #animal{name = "Sammy", distance = 5, move_verb = "Slither"}, Horse = #animal{name = "Tommy", distance = 45, move_verb = "Gallop"}, [move(A) || A <- [Snake, Horse]], ok.