I talk to a lot of very smart functional programmers, and I'm very glad I've been exposed to it, it's greatly improved how I program things.
But I really wish FP advocates would learn more about paradigms like OO before criticising them. It's too often levelled against the strawman of industry, imperative, pseudo-oo. Take this:
Components in functional programming are essentially just data types and functions, and these functions work without mutable state, he said.
I could make the same arguments for doing "late architecture" with objects:
Components in object-oriented programming are essentially just objects and messages, and these messages work without mutable state, he said.
But I really wish FP advocates would learn more about paradigms like OO before criticising them. It's too often levelled against the strawman of industry, imperative, pseudo-oo. Take this:
Components in functional programming are essentially just data types and functions, and these functions work without mutable state, he said.
I could make the same arguments for doing "late architecture" with objects:
Components in object-oriented programming are essentially just objects and messages, and these messages work without mutable state, he said.