I think functional programming really help simplifying the things: you need
to do a complex thing, so you build it with more simple functions that you
compose, you make a simple function and reuse it in a more complex one...
for each function you have arguments in input and get an object (list,
array, int ,string....) in output.
OO programming seems at first glance to provide a way to do this by calling
methods of a class that are encapsulated in it, but when using a method of
a class you always have to instantiate an object, you have to set some
things before doing the work. For any simple things your minds tends to
create virtual or real classes that you will perhaps have the needs,example
you needs a square object, nothing else, but you will tends to create first
edges, as class of square, and put square in a super class named polygons
which will also be in a class of.... you understand the problem? ;-)
so after another people reading your code will say, "hey what's all this
mess?" , and you're code will be hard to read , and even for you when
making big program you will have tons of classes, inheritance and will move
in a maze of classes!!! a nightmare.... sometimes, i experienced it! at the
opposite functional programming is so easy, so clear for your mind.
If you had strong typing which almost always the case in OO programming,
non immutable object like in C++, copy constructor, object requiring
canonical normal form of Copine,
OO programming can become really stressing to develop with in my opinion.
Damien
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:18 AM PY
whereas functional relies on categorization based on 'what actions can be done' (aka functions)
10.03.2019 23:50, Ramnath R Iyer wrote: that's what interfaces are for.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.