News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000) by vhb on Monday April 22, 2019 @12:16AM (#19716485)
> Wouldn't this violate the "encapsulation" pillar of OOP? As far as I know, it's always taught with encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism being its three pillars.

Encapsulation is "if you have a state, you should encapsulate it". It does not ask you to have a state (even less a mutable one). I quite often use object to represent a logical piece of code, without any attributes.

> I'm not sure functional programming has lost yet. I haven't worked with it personally, and so can't speak to its merits or demerits, but have heard a lot of buzz around it recently.

As much as i really enjoy FP, I don't think it has more than 1% of the market share of software engineering. And I've been hearing the "heard a lot of buzz around it recently" for more than 10 years.

Re:Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000) by Faark on Monday April 22, 2019 @08:40AM (#19718418)
The question isn't if OOP or FP will win, but what mix of both is best. A lot of old OOP languages have added features that move them more towards FP. Out of the top of my head C# got E.g. extension methods, lambdas and many ways to be less mutable or pass multiple values around. The bit of programming history i was allowed to experience most definitively became more functional.
Re:Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000) by mises on Monday April 22, 2019 @09:19AM (#19718652)
This is exactly it. The question is not "which will take over the world". Both can contribute useful features in various situations, and this is why I like languages that let me use what is best in each situation.