Re:Alan Kay's: Why is FP seen as the opposite of OOP rather ...
by mmphosis on Friday March 23, 2018 @12:58AM
(#16655198)
To me, these are the key points:
<more detail excluded here> This idea did not die, but it didn’t make it into the standard computing fads of that day, or even today. The dominant fad was to let the CPU run wild and try to protect with semaphores, etc. (These have the problem of system lockup, etc., but this weak style still is dominant.)
I wonder what the <more detail excluded here> is?
More main stream is that big data systems used * versions* instead of overwriting, and “atomic transactions” to avoid race conditions.
So: both OOP and functional computation can be completely compatible (and should be!). There is no reason to munge state in objects, and there is no reason to invent “monads” in FP. We just have to realize that “computers are simulators” and figure out what to simulate.
<more detail excluded here> This idea did not die, but it didn’t make it into the standard computing fads of that day, or even today. The dominant fad was to let the CPU run wild and try to protect with semaphores, etc. (These have the problem of system lockup, etc., but this weak style still is dominant.)
I wonder what the <more detail excluded here> is?
More main stream is that big data systems used * versions* instead of overwriting, and “atomic transactions” to avoid race conditions.
So: both OOP and functional computation can be completely compatible (and should be!). There is no reason to munge state in objects, and there is no reason to invent “monads” in FP. We just have to realize that “computers are simulators” and figure out what to simulate.