Re:Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong (2000)
by dragonwriter on Friday March 26, 2021 @12:19PM
(#26593892)
> Objects map neatly to records
FP data items (also, often called “objects”, but with different meaning) do so at least as well as OOP objects. Better in many ways.
> which pushes global state persistence and all the hairiness of locks to a good RDMS like Postgres.
OOP obscures whether an entity is an immutable data item extracted from an RDBMS or a mutable local thing or a mutable thing which mutating also effects an external resource like a database, but there is nothing about FP which prevents, compared to OOP, pushing “global state persistence and all the hairiness of locks to a good RDMS like Postgres.” In fact, the opposite; there's a reason no one talks about a Functional-Relational Impedance Mismatch.
FP data items (also, often called “objects”, but with different meaning) do so at least as well as OOP objects. Better in many ways.
> which pushes global state persistence and all the hairiness of locks to a good RDMS like Postgres.
OOP obscures whether an entity is an immutable data item extracted from an RDBMS or a mutable local thing or a mutable thing which mutating also effects an external resource like a database, but there is nothing about FP which prevents, compared to OOP, pushing “global state persistence and all the hairiness of locks to a good RDMS like Postgres.” In fact, the opposite; there's a reason no one talks about a Functional-Relational Impedance Mismatch.
> It's naturally normalized
No, OOP is not “naturally normalized”.