Comments on: Functional in the small, OO in the large http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/03/23/functional-in-the-small-oo-in-the-large/ The blog of John D. Cook Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:42:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: R. Cannibal http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/03/23/functional-in-the-small-oo-in-the-large/comment-page-1/#comment-124630 R. Cannibal Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:26:44 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1848#comment-124630 there's not exactly about small-large, I believe - rather FP for calculation parts, OO for reactive stateful parts there’s not exactly about small-large, I believe – rather FP for calculation parts, OO for reactive stateful parts

]]> By: Paulo Moura http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/03/23/functional-in-the-small-oo-in-the-large/comment-page-1/#comment-50957 Paulo Moura Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:21:56 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1848#comment-50957 Logtalk uses a similar approach: logic in the small, OO in the large. In this programming language, OO is used basically for code encapsulation and code reuse, two essential features for both logic and functional programming languages when programming in the large. Logtalk uses a similar approach: logic in the small, OO in the large. In this programming language, OO is used basically for code encapsulation and code reuse, two essential features for both logic and functional programming languages when programming in the large.

]]> By: Object oriented vs. functional programming — The Endeavour http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/03/23/functional-in-the-small-oo-in-the-large/comment-page-1/#comment-50533 Object oriented vs. functional programming — The Endeavour Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:26:33 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1848#comment-50533 [...] not randomly scattered across your code base. A simple strategy for doing this is to use functional in the small and OO in the large. Clojure also has some very interesting ideas for isolating the stateful parts of a [...] [...] not randomly scattered across your code base. A simple strategy for doing this is to use functional in the small and OO in the large. Clojure also has some very interesting ideas for isolating the stateful parts of a [...]

]]> By: nick http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/03/23/functional-in-the-small-oo-in-the-large/comment-page-1/#comment-14892 nick Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:51:02 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1848#comment-14892 I am having problems downloading the podcast (only see first 14minutes), but I'll just append my opinions above with the following. I think my questions still stand, I see some of the goals emerging (Algorithms and Parallelism). But, unlike Luke, I don't believe OO is a great paradigm in general, and he definitly thinks that it should be how a project is designed --possibly the only way. I haven't used F# more then just on the small, the little functions and algorithms (the on the small, he talks about), but I am an ocaml programmer and have experience with large projects in ocaml. I agree with him that OO and Functional programing can work together (we do a little bit of OO as well), but I also think that the main design of your project doesn't have to be OO; a module design can be equally powerful. I think it might be tough for the F# team to operate the current C# libraries with F# due to the immutability/language constraints. I am having problems downloading the podcast (only see first 14minutes), but I’ll just append my opinions above with the following.

I think my questions still stand, I see some of the goals emerging (Algorithms and Parallelism). But, unlike Luke, I don’t believe OO is a great paradigm in general, and he definitly thinks that it should be how a project is designed –possibly the only way. I haven’t used F# more then just on the small, the little functions and algorithms (the on the small, he talks about), but I am an ocaml programmer and have experience with large projects in ocaml. I agree with him that OO and Functional programing can work together (we do a little bit of OO as well), but I also think that the main design of your project doesn’t have to be OO; a module design can be equally powerful. I think it might be tough for the F# team to operate the current C# libraries with F# due to the immutability/language constraints.

]]> By: nick http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/03/23/functional-in-the-small-oo-in-the-large/comment-page-1/#comment-14883 nick Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:50:07 +0000 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=1848#comment-14883 I feel like this is just an excuse because F# doesn't have a good module system yet full of functors and stuff. You cannot program in the large and VS (as a whole) is still largely OO. And how good is the garbage collector that it can handle lots of allocations/deallocations necessary for a large functional project? I guess the main question I see is. Why can't I program in the large with F#? Currently, I'm getting a reading of: it's too young and it doesn't play easily with the rest of the libraries at large and lacks large features. And this makes sense, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate methodology that he intends his F# programmers to use. So, what is the goal of the project? Functional programming in VS only on the small or eventually on the large? //didn't listen to the interview --but will shortly--, so if he did go over anything I mentioned, please inform! I feel like this is just an excuse because F# doesn’t have a good module system yet full of functors and stuff. You cannot program in the large and VS (as a whole) is still largely OO. And how good is the garbage collector that it can handle lots of allocations/deallocations necessary for a large functional project?

I guess the main question I see is. Why can’t I program in the large with F#? Currently, I’m getting a reading of: it’s too young and it doesn’t play easily with the rest of the libraries at large and lacks large features. And this makes sense, but that doesn’t mean that it is the ultimate methodology that he intends his F# programmers to use. So, what is the goal of the project? Functional programming in VS only on the small or eventually on the large?

//didn’t listen to the interview –but will shortly–, so if he did go over anything I mentioned, please inform!

]]>