3 ms·
I do agree with bluehex: an example would definitely helped. It seems you have a new perspective on the topic, which is great but the current version sounds mor
by wicknicks 13y ago
I do agree with bluehex: an example would definitely helped. It seems you have a new perspective on the topic, which is great but the current version sounds more mystic than informative. Here are one most confusing thought: Why are you bringing in people into the equation? Are these end-users? Or programmers? If they are end-users, why do they care what programming paradigm is used?
The idea about mixing OO and FP at different levels is a good one. Have had similar experience.
- fogus 13y agoI specifically tied simulation and people together to mean simulated-people. I apologize that was not made clearer.
- wicknicks 13y agoNo need to apologize. How do you factor in relationships (between objects)? I feel that with the different kind of relationships between objects, the kind of operations would change, and therefore different paradigms would provide different strengths. Thanks!
- olalonde 13y agoI still don't understand. If you're writing SimCity ("simulated-people") you should use OOP and if you're writing genealogy software ("data about people") you should use functional programming!? I assume I misunderstood what you meant because otherwise I have no idea how you arrived to that conclusion.
- reeses 13y agoYou're highlighting the immaturity of software construction. Anecdote-Driven-Development will justify almost any approach, especially to vague problems.