Re:Announcing GenStage
by dragonwriter on Thursday July 14, 2016 @02:59PM
(#12096388)
> most devs go from OO to FP,
Most devs go from OO to FP because of dominance of OO in industry (with knock-on effects on pedagogy) from sometime around the late-1980s/early-1990s until recently. Shortly before that, the same would be true of procedural to either OO or FP. And probably at one point the same would have been true of unstructured imperative to procedural.
But that doesn't mean that concurrency in popular OO languages of today is easier than concurrency in Erlang/Elixir (which may be examples of functional-ish languages, which I assume is the relevance of your OO to FP statement), nor does it mean that concurrency in formerly popular procedural languages is easier than in any particular OO language, or that concurrency in unstructured imperative languages is easier than in any particular procedural language.
Re:Announcing GenStage
by macintux on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:24PM
(#12096905)
I think the only argument left for "why I should learn OO before FP" is the lingering suspicion no one would tolerate the pain involved with OO once they reached that point.
Most devs go from OO to FP because of dominance of OO in industry (with knock-on effects on pedagogy) from sometime around the late-1980s/early-1990s until recently. Shortly before that, the same would be true of procedural to either OO or FP. And probably at one point the same would have been true of unstructured imperative to procedural.
But that doesn't mean that concurrency in popular OO languages of today is easier than concurrency in Erlang/Elixir (which may be examples of functional-ish languages, which I assume is the relevance of your OO to FP statement), nor does it mean that concurrency in formerly popular procedural languages is easier than in any particular OO language, or that concurrency in unstructured imperative languages is easier than in any particular procedural language.