[FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming – Kent C. Dodds – Medium

[Marcus Daniels]

It is really not a big change from classes.   If you already have objects, often all you have to change is that you return them.  Object-oriented languages implicitly have the notion of the object as a first argument, so you've got a container to work with.  The job of higher level code is to assemble and disassemble what is returned in a reasonable way.  Perhaps it involves folds/reductions or perhaps it is just bigger containers.  This gives a good (and, in FP, necessary) opportunity to think about how to manage dependencies.   And yes, you have to start thinking in terms of `custody' of objects rather than `ownership'.  One of the recent trends in web app development are `reactive' services.  These ideas came from the FP community.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:19:05 AM
To: Wedtech; Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming – Kent C. Dodds – Medium

​I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick.

But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is very Self-like:
  ​​
https://me
​​
dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747<http://dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747>

​It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no `this`.

It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?

Do any of us *use* functional programming?

   -- Owen​

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/212da871/attachment.html>