OOP is the logical conclusion to programming. Prove me wrong.
>>51829388
Stop shitposting. Fuck you. Go back to reddit
>>51829388
>OOP
>pOOP
proven
>>51829465
Only a true redditor shill would mention that hellhole in an unrelated thread.
The logical conclusion to programming are more math pure languages and functional languages not less math driven languages
>>51829388
>>51830173
This, dependent strong typing is the logical conclusion to programming.
By comparison OOP is just a shit meme that has gone on far too long.
>>51830220
so?
>>51830173
>functional languages not less math driven languages
So-called "functional" languages spread ignorance disguised as knowledge, and that's disgusting.
Promoters of these languages are deliberately encouraging this ignorance because it gets them more users.
It's bad enough that they have to dumb down people's knowledge of programming concepts, but they do it to math too.
>>51830313
Great examples faglord
And the range of functional languages is pretty high
>>51830313
Hello realtalkintech
>>51830300
How many people think of programming from an absolutely pure mathematical perspective? There's always a purpose to be served and a thing that the numbers are quantifying. OOP is like annotating all that into your program so you don't have to keep a notepad where you scribble what everything. It's more for organization than anything else.
OOP is a paradigm that works well in certain situations but shouldn't be used for everything. Part of being a good programmer recognizing which language\paradigm is best for solving a given problem.
>>51830395
>OOP is the only way to organize software
Hmm
>>51829388
As your objects become larger and larger, they inevitably destroy the cache.
>>51830173
how would i implement a graphical user interface using only functional programming?
not trying to stir shit i just only ever see FP used on really abstract problems
>>51830313
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows because you call functional programming "ignorance".
Look at the concepts used in Haskell: monoids, functors, applicative functors, and monads. These are category theoretic structures that allow for much more powerful generalizations than objects do, and they make more mathematical sense.
The reason people like you hate functional programming is because it weeds out the people who are just barely literate enough to write brute force for-loops in Java.
>>51830435
Which part of a GUI? The logic is best modeled with FRP and the rendering is basically just a tree
>>51830446
>muh category theory
>>51830395
This post is so dumb I'm not sure how to respond to it. Literally go learn what mathematical type systems are, then decide if OOP actually adds anything of value over them.
Type classes are basically OOP: The Good Parts
>>51830446
>Look at the concepts used in Haskell: monoids, functors, applicative functors, and monads.
All completely useless abstract bullshite.
>>51830173
>>51830446
>>51830486
Is this a false flag or are you just atop Mount Stupid?
I agree with your sentiment but you have no idea what you're talking about. FP doesn't contradict OOP, not in principle. The problems with OOP are mostly in its common implementations, not in its concepts, which are mostly transferable to functional languages anyways.
>>51830517
>>51830517
I would say records of functions (and values) is closer to OOP than typeclasses. typeclasses are good when you have a canonical record for a certain type (or multiple types, for multiparameter typeclasses), which is a bit narrower.
>oop
>lets make some things easier then make other things require 15 step along with entire paradigms rather then admit that some things are better in a functional language
>oop
>lets shove EVERYTHING into the heap.
>trying to tell something some options for a http connection request
>lol lets allocate a new object into the heap, set some properties on it, pass it in the stack.
It's like they forgot that structs are a thing
>>51830644
non-function values*
>>51830446
The belief that functional programming is more mathematical because it uses mathematical words is part of this ignorance.
Functional languages dumb down words like category and algebraic type.
