3 ms·
The thing that bothers me about this attitude is that it discourages considering alternatives. I've had a blog post on this stewing for awhile, but the gist of
by rybosome 13y ago
The thing that bothers me about this attitude is that it discourages considering alternatives. I've had a blog post on this stewing for awhile, but the gist of my counter argument is that it is a common human condition to feel that the current level of technology is sufficient - people have made that argument countless times in the face of progress.
- jafaku 13y agoHe didn't say it's sufficient, he said OOP can do the work (lots of examples) while FP can't (he asked for examples, since we don't have any).
- joe_the_user 13y agoOr perhaps it encourages think about alternative-alternatives. Functional programming has been presented as the alternative to OOP for a looong time now and the indications are that it just isn't to replace it ever. OOP is a paradigm that does work for gluing huge piles of flawed-but-useful code together. And OOP indeed has lurid flaws to it on multiple levels (the ambiguity concerning what "inheritance" is supposed to mean is one of many ridiculousnesses). Something that replaces OOP would need to have SOME winning combination of gluing hunks-of-together so you didn't have to start from scratch and being-so-powerful-but-understandable that medium skill-level programmers could replace the junk reasonably painlessly. If we acknowledge FP isn't going to be that paradigm, then we can start searching for a different one.
- rybosome 13y agoInteresting; I am amenable to that idea, but don't have any experience with alternatives. I think a hybrid OOP/FP approach (i.e. Scala) can actually work really well, though I don't know if there is a perfect reference implementation.