Re:My Perception of CoffeeScript
by jhickner on Friday June 15, 2012 @02:56PM
(#4118060)
shiffern's example uses the same coding style you use in Clojure. It doesn't feel like stretch to call it FP. Start with a basic data structure (the object in shiffern's example would translate to a map in Clojure) and then operate on it with simple functions.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
or in scala:
val snake = Map("name"->"Sammy", "dist"->"5m","move"->" slithers ")
val horse = Map("name"->"Tommy", "dist"->"45m","move"->" gallops ")
def move(m: Map[String,String]) = println( m("name") + m("move" ) + m("dist")
scala> move (snake)
Sammy slithers 5m
scala> move (horse)
Tommy gallops 45m
If FP = OO via dictionaries, then yeah, ok :))The example given by author is very FP and not OOP, since the move function doesn't modify shared state and the only side-effect is output.
We use CoffeeScript for node.js and browser client code. I think classes more useful for control patterns, like EventEmitter in node.js, and much less for wrapping of data, as done in traditional Java/C++ -style OOP or ORM models.
I'll chip in Erlang (real production-grade code with type-specs, not a short REPL example):
-module(animal).
-record(animal{
name :: string(),
distance :: integer(),
move_verb :: string()
}).
-spec move(animal()) -> ok.
move(#animal{name=Name, distance=Distance, move_verb=MoveVerb}) ->
io:format("~sing... ~s moved ~b meters~n",
[default(MoveVerb, "Mov"), default(Name, "It"), default(Distance,1)]).
-spec default(X::any(), Val::any()) -> any().
default(undefined,Val) -> Val.
default(X, _) -> X.
-spec main() -> ok.
main() ->
Snake = #animal{name = "Sammy",
distance = 5,
move_verb = "Slither"},
Horse = #animal{name = "Tommy",
distance = 45,
move_verb = "Gallop"},
[move(A) || A <- [Snake, Horse]],
ok.