[Haskell-cafe] [OT] thoughts about OO vs. functional "philosophy"

[Brandon Allbery]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:55 AM PY <aquagnu at gmail.com> wrote:

> And this is false for Haskell: it's not enough to know language syntax
> (it's relatively simple): each library can involve own level of
> abstraction, own eDSLs, etc. And if somebody built his library on
> arrows, pipes, free monads, etc - it's not enough to know language's
> syntax only. Imagine a big house built with simple and same bricks. And
> some Baroque theater where anything is complex and unique.
>
> So, languages like Haskell are more complex and need more time to learn
> and create valuable applications.
>

OO has its own version of this… more insidiously. You're prone to see a
class hierarchy and think you understand it up front because it's all
familiar things, but every application in effect has its own distinct
notion of what a given class means, exposed as either custom methods or
custom implementations thereof implementing the app's specific logic.
Haskell's FP style makes you expose this directly. (But it's the same
amount of complexity underneath, so ultimately not really different; it
just taxes the programmer in different ways.)

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh
allbery.b at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20190311/b1e2ed8e/attachment.html>