The more time goes by, the more I become a functional programming enthusiast. Even when I'm working in an OOP codebase, I try to apply small concep...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
YESS!! Another amazing article @cherryramatis. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. Nicee!!
Thanks a lot!! It's such a pleasure
Your text is amazing!!!!
thanks honey ❤️
I think this is a great summary for someone new to the topic.
Here's another perspective. Functional programming is about programming with pure functions, like ones in math, it's right there in the name. So why is it also about immutability? Because if you could mutably rebind a name from one function to another, it would no longer look like a pure function. And mathematical functions don't mutate anything: running
lcm(6, 10)doesn't change six or ten. Mutation is a side effect.OOP cannot be eliminated. "OOP" is merely syntactical sugar for what would otherwise be handling "objects" in memory using pure functions. Using pure functions is more difficult and cumbersome the more complex the "object" requirements get. TLDR: OOP is a superset of functional programming, and functional programming has not gone anywhere, and most languages have syntactical sugar (f.e. classes) to take functional programming to the next level.
Agreed
bom demais!
brigada migaaa
Again you are at Awesome Elixir Newsletter
elixir.libhunt.com/newsletter/406
Congrats, Cherry!
Let's gooooo thanks for the love of always <3
Thanks for sharing! This is pure gold!
it's an honor to share knowledge ❤️
Loved it.
I am coding OOP for quite some time now, and I am also introducing more and more functional concepts to my code.
Very nicely written!
Very nice Cherry, I am getting a better understanding of OOP and functional programming with you, Thanks
anyone interested in FP should check out elm-lang.org/ - great simple language for learning FP concepts, building front-ends without all the complexity of Haskell
I took a quick look at Elm and, honestly... it looks a lot like Haskell. But that's not a bad thing at all. I don't think Haskell itself is complex, the way it's taught makes it seem like it's more complex than it really is.
You mentioned composibility in the end without having explained first what it is, is this a teaser for the next article or were we expected already know what that is or google it?