I'm all for ADTs but the reasons the article gives are all wrong, and in fact I think it makes the code a lot worse as a result.
Object programming doesn't mean "inheritance trees", that's just the (IMHO overly simplified) flavor of object programming that we call "OOP". (I'm omitting a full rant from here, which I ought to put on an article at some point.) Object programming is all about state and behavior, just like functional programming; it only differs in how it lays out the behavior namespace (object programming uses inheritance of behavior through lookup chains, which puts the object in focus; functional programming inverts that and uses the structure of the object to dispatch, putting the function in focus).
Grouping behavior together in a single function like the article suggests is, IMO, an anti-pattern and one that I consider to be one of the great disadvantages of a functional programming style. Bundling behavior together means the behavior is out of the control of the object; the object's identity now becomes a critical part of the operation being performed. IMO, putting the focus on behavior is the wrong approach here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some features in functional programming; immutability is great for being able to make assumptions about program state and re-entrancy, for example. But I think the tendency to "lock" behavior into functions and not letting objects define their own behavior is a major shortcoming.
Object programming doesn't mean "inheritance trees", that's just the (IMHO overly simplified) flavor of object programming that we call "OOP". (I'm omitting a full rant from here, which I ought to put on an article at some point.) Object programming is all about state and behavior, just like functional programming; it only differs in how it lays out the behavior namespace (object programming uses inheritance of behavior through lookup chains, which puts the object in focus; functional programming inverts that and uses the structure of the object to dispatch, putting the function in focus).
Grouping behavior together in a single function like the article suggests is, IMO, an anti-pattern and one that I consider to be one of the great disadvantages of a functional programming style. Bundling behavior together means the behavior is out of the control of the object; the object's identity now becomes a critical part of the operation being performed. IMO, putting the focus on behavior is the wrong approach here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some features in functional programming; immutability is great for being able to make assumptions about program state and re-entrancy, for example. But I think the tendency to "lock" behavior into functions and not letting objects define their own behavior is a major shortcoming.