6 ms·

Yep. It always amazes me when die-hard OOP'ers get it all wrong and think FP is at war with their beloved OO. Well no. Plenty of FP languages exist that combine

• seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  It always amazes me when die-hard FP'ers get it all wrong and think OOP is at war with their beloved FP. Well no, plenty of OOP languages exist that combine FP and OO together. Scala.. C#.. Clojure.. etc.
  • nbevans 12y ago
    Perfect example ^
    • ww520 12y ago
      Did you just illustrate his point? No one in the comments mentioned OOP and you were the one to bring it up to disparage it. He was just responding to your hypocrisy.
      • nbevans 12y ago
        "Bring it up to disparage it"... uh what?
  • mercurial 12y ago
    C# at least doesn't do immutability per default, which is another classical property of FP.
    • seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Most functional programming languages don't do immutability by default (which anyways, is an aspect of the library that can choose to be or not to be; LINQ definitely is). There are also no true scotts men.
      • mercurial 12y ago
        Considering there is no (AFAIK) agreed upon definition of what an FP language is, I'm using classical as "common and found in older FP languages", not saying that an FP language which isn't immutable per default is not FP. I'm think of Haskell, OCaml or (AFAIK) Erlang. From what I read, Clojure has also a lot of emphasis on immutability.
        • seanmcdirmid 12y ago
          Haskell and OCaml aren't really that old. I'm thinking ML and Lisp, scheme, which don't focus on immutability. Both clojure and haskell have mutability, just at differing granularities (haskell monads, clojure replace the world object). They can do it with referential transparency though (which is probably your meaning, obviously pure immutability is impossible and not sensical).
          • mercurial 12y ago
            Haskell is from 1990 and OCaml from 1996, it's not awfully recent. > Both clojure and haskell have mutability, just at differing granularities (haskell monads, clojure replace the world object). They can do it with referential transparency though (which is probably your meaning, obviously pure immutability is impossible and not sensical). Well, you have to have to be able to manipulate state somehow (even if, at least on the surface, the state monad emulates mutability, as opposed to, eg, OCaml's notion of mutation, which is very explicit in what it does). But the point is that it is not the path of least resistance in these languages.
            • seanmcdirmid 12y ago
              They are not very old either, at least not compared to Lisp (60s), scheme and the MLs (70s/80s). Haskell is quite brand spanking new in comparison to the old guard. What C# lacks for me in FP, case matching, has little to do with purity. The FP story involves purity but is not dominated by it. List comprehensions still work in C# even though you can theoretically side effect in your select and filter functions.
• ww520 12y ago
  You've got it wrong. OOP'ers have no problem using FP. It is die-hard FP'ers who would disparage OOP whenever given the chance.
  • reymus 12y ago
    I think you're right. OOP'ers tend to not understand FP, and when they do get it, they are happy to use it. On the other hand, die-hard FP'ers tend to look down on OOP'ers.
    • CmonDev 12y ago
      I'd bet many FP'ers don't really understand OOP either. They tend to think creating complex hierarchies is necessary and algebraic data types and modules magically fix everything.