oop vs fp

multi paradigm

>>61882934
OOP with multi paradigm

File: 1470px-Doomsday_Clock_graph.svg.png (50KB, 1470x436px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1470x436px

>>61882925
nobody uses functional programming
so kill yourself

>>61882953

I use functional programming thus YOU should go commit sudoku with a butter knife.

>>61882925
OOP if you want a job

>>61883070
Yes but best jobs are fp.

File: Screenshot at 2017-08-13 10-38-38.png (162KB, 823x513px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 823x513px

>>61882925
>.gif

>>61882934
came to post this

procedural

Programmation Orientée Objet

>>61884656
Objektorienterad programmering

>>61884679
Mine's better. I'll give you a hint...

POO

Objective-oriented functions

>>61884656
Olio-ohjelmointi :^)

>>61884731
>Olio-ohjelmointi

meme language. here have a few k's kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

>>61884754
You're just jealous because creature programming sounds so much cooler than OOP.

Functional obviously, POOP sucks.

But you'll come to the same conclusions, you just need some more experience

>>61882925
The problem is most OOP languages are shittily designed, and are permeated by beginner programmers and spaghetti code. Java, C++, C#, etc.

Functional languages are more academic and attract better programmers, so the bar is higher.

A well-designed OOP language (e.g. Ruby, Smalltalk) is as much of a joy to program in as any functional language.

None of those. Learn Go (Golang):
https://tour.golang.org
https://www.golang-book.com

>>61884986
A golet, HAHAH

>>61884986
None of those. Gulag.

>>61882934
>>61883741
>>61885118
these, /thread

>>61882953

actually it is very useful if you know your number theory because Haskell (for example) is meant to interpret recurrences the way math books interpret them

>>61882925
>using a language that restricts you to a single paradigm

>>61882925
OOP, but Smalltalk's OOP not Java's.

>>61882925
Think and plan functional.
Write functional with an underlying procedural.

>>61884986
>>61884986
>>61884986
this

>>61884656
short for POO ...I am sure you know what follows next

>>61882925
OOP is just functionnal where every function is curried with a datastructure.

>>61884689
>POO
It's fun because in Spanish we say "Programación Orientada a Objectos".

Give lambdas to OOP language, developers love it.

Give objects to FP language, developers don't give a fuck.

There is no debate, OOP is doomed.

File: 12.jpg (294KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1280x720px

What if both have their own pros and cons?

>>61887382
The utility of OOP is directly proportional to how much of a shitshow your project is. It allows people with no discipline or forethought to participate in large projects, but it has no "pros" in the general sense.