View Single Post
Old 26 June 2010, 22:54   #7
TCD
Registered User

TCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 41
Posts: 24,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh View Post
Some people argue that OO makes code hard to read, unless you are dealing with GUIs, and that purely functional stuff is less error prone because of the missing side effects.
Functional coding = missing side effects? Heh, would really like to have a read who said that. Anyway, the examples you pointed to are set around web development (which is indisputable not unimportant) and that might explain why functional concepts are re-implemented there. Except for C++ Boost, but since C++ is both anyway that's not surprising. Considering 'classic' coding, there is very little tendency to go back, while desinging in UML and choosing the easiest way to get it implemented (OO) is quite important today. That's why AOP will be the next step in coding philosophies, as it offers ways to overcome the shortcomings of OO coding. Functinal coding is nice for smaller projects and surely faster to implement (sometimes), but that it's less error prone must come from someone that really struggles with efficient OO design
TCD is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04098 seconds with 11 queries