5 ms·

I don't understand the hate for such methodologies (in the comments here) that seem to go down the wrong path. And this is coming from someone who is a strong p

I don't understand the hate for such methodologies (in the comments here) that seem to go down the wrong path. And this is coming from someone who is a strong proponent of functional programming. The problem as I see it is pure functional programmers scoff at object oriented design being so prevalent while object oriented programmers seem so biased and giddy towards OOP when they haven't even seen the light yet. How come more people don't see that both are correct? Both are the result of the market and people reacting (heh) to the market. This by definition means that both are correct but serve different purposes. What is fascinating to me is that the web has evolved enough to where user are expecting results immediately for their actions. This is an amazing time to live in. Why? Because this means the market is finally very invested in providing a fluid functional experience for the user. Since the front end is functional and the backend is OO, its very exciting times as we are the midst of real time innovation. React is just a tool to help connect these two very different pieces. Functional programmers need to get off their high horse and ask themselves why frameworks are almost entirely object oriented. Object oriented programmers need to ask themselves why they didn't think of a reactive view sooner. Both are not 100% right but functional programmers come off as d*cks when they fail to see there is no continuum of FP principles and that in the real world OOP makes sense (say to connect the pieces between say a Scala backend and React front end). You'd think they would realized this sooner though when noting, for example, that "call by name" usually is more efficient than "call by value".

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I don't follow how "the market" validates technical paradigms as correct in any way you describe. Even assuming efficient rational actors, it has always seemed like the industry adjusts to what has low conceptual overhead and high familiarity, good advertising and at least reasonable utility. Nor do I understand how the real-time web indicates we're in an innovative age just because functional techniques are currently gaining popularity. For what it's worth, I've never been hostile to OO. I enjoy Smalltalk, I like Erlang most out of the so-called functional languages, and I've had interest in the concatenative, logic and array programming paradigms as well, where it seems most academics and HN users are ruthlessly committed to FP that they sometimes fail to recognize there's other paradigms as well.
- spectrum1234 12y ago
  1 - yes my definition of the market is actually as simple as part of your reasoning -> "it has always seemed like the industry adjusts to what has low conceptual overhead and high familiarity, good advertising and at least reasonable utility." I'm not sure if you meant it or not but that the perfect definition of a market and I mean it in that sense. As I've learned from pursuing my own startups...the market is not rational in any other sense. Ever. 2 = Because programming has always (in the mainstream sense) been FP platform + OOP middleware /frameworks + FP high level layer. Now, looking back, in most disciplines only 1 or 2 of these are used, but that just means in those situations the other layers are factored out. In enterprise AND startup development THIS is the formula that is ever present nowadays. 3- I've heard very good things about Erlang. I agree there are more paradigms. That is just a continuation of my first point interestingly enough. I'm pretty new to programming but the benefit of being an unbiased observer is being able to pick up on all these things. Thank you for the response.
mpweiher 12y ago
Can you clarify what you mean with "reactive view"? "Reactive" is such an ill-defined and overloaded term these days. However, I'd like to point out the long history of constraint systems such as Sketchpad, ThingLab, Garnet/Amulet and all the smaller/more limited variants. See also http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/03/the-siren-call-of-kvo-and-cocoa-bindings.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/03/the-siren-call-of-kvo-and...

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

I don't follow how "the market" validates technical paradigms as correct in any way you describe. Even assuming efficient rational actors, it has always seemed like the industry adjusts to what has low conceptual overhead and high familiarity, good advertising and at least reasonable utility. Nor do I understand how the real-time web indicates we're in an innovative age just because functional techniques are currently gaining popularity. For what it's worth, I've never been hostile to OO. I enjoy Smalltalk, I like Erlang most out of the so-called functional languages, and I've had interest in the concatenative, logic and array programming paradigms as well, where it seems most academics and HN users are ruthlessly committed to FP that they sometimes fail to recognize there's other paradigms as well.

spectrum1234 12y ago
1 - yes my definition of the market is actually as simple as part of your reasoning -> "it has always seemed like the industry adjusts to what has low conceptual overhead and high familiarity, good advertising and at least reasonable utility." I'm not sure if you meant it or not but that the perfect definition of a market and I mean it in that sense. As I've learned from pursuing my own startups...the market is not rational in any other sense. Ever. 2 = Because programming has always (in the mainstream sense) been FP platform + OOP middleware /frameworks + FP high level layer. Now, looking back, in most disciplines only 1 or 2 of these are used, but that just means in those situations the other layers are factored out. In enterprise AND startup development THIS is the formula that is ever present nowadays. 3- I've heard very good things about Erlang. I agree there are more paradigms. That is just a continuation of my first point interestingly enough. I'm pretty new to programming but the benefit of being an unbiased observer is being able to pick up on all these things. Thank you for the response.

mpweiher 12y ago

Can you clarify what you mean with "reactive view"? "Reactive" is such an ill-defined and overloaded term these days. However, I'd like to point out the long history of constraint systems such as Sketchpad, ThingLab, Garnet/Amulet and all the smaller/more limited variants. See also http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/03/the-siren-call-of-kvo-and-cocoa-bindings.html http://blog.metaobject.com/2014/03/the-siren-call-of-kvo-and...