Is OOP a meme?
Are OOP programmers too stupid to into functional programming?
ur gay fuk u faget
>WUD EBEN IZ A OBJECT SUM KIND OF STOOPID THANG DAT DONG EVBEN USE A FUNGSHUN?
Meme topKek = new Meme();
Looks pretty normal to me.
>>51253220
OOP is a faggot
>>51253220
OOP is good
OOP doesn't solve all problems though
Functional is good
Functional doesn't solve all problems though
Everyone is happy :)
Is functional programming a meme?
Are functional programmers too stupid to into states?
>>51253220
Name one thing functional programming has over OOP.
>>51253304
Multiparadigm is GOAT.
>>51253304
Fairly new dev here. What are some good real world problems where functional programming works better? I learned me a Haskell for great good in a class but I wasn't really sure why I'd want to use it elsewhere. The prof was shitty so he didn't have any good applications either.
>>51253350
Do you like Javascript? it's capable of many different styles, one reason people seem to dislike it.
>>51253420
You want street cred
They both have their place and can solve the same problems with relatively similar efficiency.
Subjectively speaking, I find functional approaches are usually more elegant and concise, though sometimes less clear - to be expectied with less verbosity. It also usually has a larger memory footprint but is wonderfully suited for parallelization.
>>51253458
JS is fine apart from callbacks, which are not an issue anymore with ES7.
>OOP and FP are mutually exclusive
>This thread
>>51253458
Theorem provers, compilers, model checkers.
there was an idiot on the verge who thought object in OOP meant icons.
>>51253220
Object-oriented programming and functional programming aren't mutually exclusive you retard.
If you can't use both then you have no right to call yourself a programmer.
>>51253582
>scala
>ever
Ocaml or bust!
>>51255606
Why should I learn something that's objectively inferior?
>>51255645
>OBJECTively inferior
Obviously that would be $your_favorite_oop_language_here
>>51255725
>being poor
What an INTeresting thread().
How can you model a car in functional programming?
>>51255865
you dont
>>51255865type Car = Car String Int;
Car "nigger" 1984
>>51255907
What about structures in C?
>>51256001
C structs have nothing to do with OOP.
>>51256069
>C++ classes have nothing to do with OOP.
>>51256069
But couldn't I use it to store data in a way that resembles an object in OOP?
>>51256100
C++ classes follow the OOP rules (mostly).
>>51256133
So do C structs.
>>51256131
Yes, but storing data alongside methods is just one part of OOP. C isn't and will never be OOP. It's not trying to, either, so the discussion is hiroyuki.
>>51256150
Wrong.
>>51256169
>Wrong
But he's not. A struct can easily replace almost everything a class can. Only really missing inheritance.
>>51256208
Inheritance can be done by having a pointer to the parent, or via macros.
>>51256208
>A struct can easily replace almost everything a class can.
Keep dreaming.
>>51256227
Good point.
>>51256242
Name something then.
