Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Fad Oriented Programming

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 4:05

Is it time to declare object orientation officially over and allow functional programming to take the crown as the latest fad?

Also, do you think logical programming will be next? Maybe I should brush up on my Prolog.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 6:31

>>1
FP is a hot topic because it's changing a lot these days. If you want to get on the hip train don't bother with Prolog, miniKanren is where it's at.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 6:48

>>1
Nope. OOP has too much of network effect to unseat, before this functional fad takes over. Watch for Sepples standard additions they are in the direction of 99% of industry. Concepts and type classes are going to get in, then abstract tuple lists, generalized variadic abstract concept functions/templates, functors/lambda concepts, lambda tuples, run-time specialization/construction of functors etc. It would appear in crude Sepples clothes with functional interior.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 7:12

Next fad is whatever paradigm jQuery, Rails, and the like can be said to follow. Billions will be invested in it from embedded programming to database applications to mass surveillance systems, all without a single thought of whether it is a good investment. Get on that train while you can now, and brush up on PowerPoint to get those sweet, sweet consultant yen.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 7:40

>>3
Most of those are FP features. C++ doesn't even OO right anyway.

>>4
No. jAyVR is not a thing and basically can't be. Compile-time DSLs/frameworks may catch on though.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 8:17

>>1
No. When you see AAA game engines that are mostly written in an FP language, I might agree. When you see the popularity of FP languages in enterprise job listings, I might agree.

>>5
What is OO the right way? C++ has objects and inheritance. What more do you want?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 9:27

>>6
It has functions and function composition too, but I wouldn't call it functional either. It has integers, and you use them just as often as objects, but I wouldn't call it integer-oriented (BCPL, though, that's integer-oriented. Everything is an integer in BCPL.)

The right way to do OO is to have an object oriented language. Smalltalk, Javascript, Lua, Io, even fucking Python is more OO than C++. Another not-OO language is Perl; it has all the OO features-*all* of them. You can do any style of objects in Perl, but it isn't used that way. Perl 6 otoh is OO.

Unless your language is "everything is an object" to some approximation, it's just not OO.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 11:16

Oriented Oriented Programming

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 11:18

>>8
Homosexually Oriented Programming

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 13:52

>>9
Software Industry already rejected LISP, it won't be relevant again.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 14:09

>>1
Read that as "Fart Oriented Programming"

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 14:59

>>7
Lua [...] is more OO than C++

I don't follow at all. There is nothing about Lua that makes it fundamentally more OO than C++. Lua doesn't even have a standard model for inheritance (it has mechanisms that can be used to implement it in various potentially incompatible ways, but then so do most other languages).

For most of the other languages you named, whether OO is used or not is fundamentally the programmer's choice.

Name: >>1 2015-03-04 16:54

>>7
Sepples is not OO, it's CO. As are Java and C#.

Name: >>3 2015-03-04 17:19

The future is concurrent and parallel, faggot. Only FP, only hardcore.

Name: >>4 2015-03-04 17:20

>>14
And I mena only PURE FP, oaf coarse. So sorry, Camel- and Cloajure-fags, but you've already loast.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 17:43

>>15
Fuck off, you're not the real RedCream.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 18:13

The current fads are Rust, Go, and Javascript.

Name: >>5 2015-03-04 18:24

>>16
Noar did I claim to be oan. What's your proablem?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 21:05

>>18
You talk like a fag and your shit is all retarded. Just a heads-up.

Also, if you want to see how the parallel future looks like, check out this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ashleyf/archive/2013/10/13/programming-the-f18.aspx , unsurprisingly it's as far from FP as they get.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 23:51

>>10
Enjoy your malware and slow, stupid systems.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 0:56

>>13-chan, you are not >>1. I am >>1. Please do not impersonate me. You have been asked to stop this behavior before.

Name: >>1 2015-03-05 1:32

I love Rust and I think Eich deserved to be fired.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 2:04

Pure OOP languages like Smalltalk were never popular because paradigm strictness is not really helpful when you just need to finish your work, that's why you only see multiparadigm languages being used in the ``industry''. If you want to surf the current FP fad then go and learn Scala or just use the last version of your old fart language (e.g. C++11).

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 2:26

>>10
http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs/tag/clojure

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 3:30

>>13
u mena crap oriented programming?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 10:12

>>24
Clojure isn't a LISP, retard.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 13:11

>>26
je it is retard. check my lucky 27.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 14:37

>>26
how do you explain all those parenthesis and cars and cdrs?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 14:50

>>28
swamp gas

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 16:53

>>29
Therefore Clojure is Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 17:15

>>28
Its code is not represented by lists, therefore it is not a LISt-Processing language.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 20:00

>>31
You're one of those people who think only things like s-exps can be homoiconic.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 20:02

>>32

No, Clojure is homoiconic. But it's not a LISP.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 20:20

>>31
Most lisps have many more data types than only lists.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 20:42

>>34
BUt only lists are used to represent Lisp forms. Not so in Clojure.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-06 8:50

Clojure is homoerotic.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-07 1:13

>>35
BUt only lists are used to represent Lisp forms.
Do you actually believe that?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-07 3:09

>>37
It's true. When lisp is parsed, a list represents the code. In clojure, an array will actually be an array after it is parsed, and the same with a hashmap. This is kind of cool but it is a deviation from lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-07 19:58

>>38
Arrays and hashmaps are still lists. It doesn't matter if they are special lists because it's still a list.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-07 20:19

>>39
You're not making any sense.
Try to write

(defn foo (a b)
(display "HW!")

in Clojure and you will see it's not a Lisp. Also, [a b] denotes a vector, not a list, in Clojure.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -