How do you go back to writing procedural/Object Oriented code after diving down the rabbit hole of functional programming? So many things are just so much more elegant. Things that take a few lines of code in a language like f# or Haskell can take upwards of dozens to a hundred lines of boiler plate code with mutable state all over the place in an OO language. If was forced to work in some code monkey language like golang I would want to jump out a window from how dull it is.
I'm working on a Java codebase right now. Java at least has some facilities for functional programming like functional interfaces, lambdas and streams. My manager is deeply rooted in everything OO, deep class hierarchies, mutable state everywhere, hundreds of files littered across dozens of directories that could be replaced by a fraction of the amount of code with a functional approach. I try to use streams, optional types, lambdas, static pure functions etc. as much as I can but he just shoots them down in code review because they don't meet the "style guide" of the project.
How is OO programming, especially strict OO like Java that forces everything into a noun still so popular?
all of the cruft of OO like UML diagrams and thousand-line class definitions make middle managers happy because it looks like people are doing work
the only thing that talks with force is money, and functional houses are way smaller and can scale way bigger, as discuck and others have shown
Grayson Hughes
You leave that project. I'm in your same shoes except we don't ever do code review lmfao. It's up to you and me to study leetcode and join a real company that cares about this shit.
Matthew Johnson
You might know how to code, but corporations which push the intertia of a lot of this stuff, they suck dick at programming.
Evan Davis
Why, just write small pure function and package them in a lib.
logically isolate stateful code by using naming a convention
pass contexts around (I will degenerates could get the beauty of implicits -the second only innovation in PL after Type classes which actually are type-traits) instead of global variables
actually, mostly-functional approach popularized by Scheme will be fine
and, of course, you need no fucking monads in a strict language
/thread
Dominic Hughes
You can still program in functional programming language and object orientated programming; see Scala and OCaml.
Hudson Parker
Not when the coding guidelines are completely retarded crap that was barely acceptable 20 years ago.
Christopher Adams
Quit your job But seriously, ask for a transfer to another team, push to start a project in scala or clojure. Consider sleeping with your boss to make him see things your way?
Grayson James
I don't think either of those are done favours by their OO features.
Joshua Reed
considering JVM in 2019. idiots, idiots everywhere
you should even suggest typescript
Grayson Adams
>Scala So successful, it's biggest contributor rage quit precisely because the scala community were killing the FP part in favor of insane OOP lunacy. youtube.com/watch?v=4jh94gowim0
Carson Williams
Most of his rant has either been fixed or will be fixed in dotty.
Joshua James
>It's up to you and me to study leetcode and join a real company that cares about this shit. Which companies are those? If I knew beforehand I would apply to them, but there's no way to really know unless you go through an interview process which takes a lot of time.
Parker Lewis
So Scala fixed all its insane type abstractions and no longer has a split and fragmented community? And Scalaz is now in the standard?
Gavin Robinson
why that fucking hipster is barefoot? does he imagine himself as a yogin or a baba? some kind of a lifted spirituality over a mundane world?
Alexander Hill
OOP if for brainlets who can't reason about abstractions and mathematics that need to think about objects to create simple stuff.
Brody Hall
Based
Michael Wilson
he's trying to have a beach vibe its hot in summers bro
Hudson Evans
a. The JVM isn't terrible, it just has a bad rep because it's tied to Java, but in itself it's a good piece of engineering. Yeah it isn't as fast or memory efficient as C, we know. b. Consider the setting. Organizations are afraid of change. If you tell them they can keep their precious JVM and run regular jar they're more likely to agree, yes? c. typescript Heaven forbid
Carson Butler
K O T L I N
Gavin Murphy
Funny you say that, but he still thinks that Scala is the best tool out there, he is just an idealist and perfectionist.
Gabriel Hill
Because he cares more about his own comfort than your dress code.
Juan Kelly
Why did he stop writing scala code then?
Brody Diaz
When did he say that? In any case he probably stopped writing code in every language because he is autistic and wants to create the perfect language.
Ethan Price
>he is autistic Autism and retardation aren't the same thing. And only the latter could cause someone to write Scala of their own will. >wants to create the perfect language It already exists. It just has a natural pleb-filter barrier around it.
