I do value FP, respect FP , learn FP and admire FP every day. This is merely how I reason the 'Satus Quo' of current software development landscape.
These days (2000+) people use FP a lot. The reason ? It is easy to develop much correct (less bugs) code with FP. The reason ? FP is backed by pure mathematics. Some math theories related to FP are form 1800s.
On the other hand, OOP with non FP (object oriented programming) is called an old paradigm. The problem with the *old* OOP style is, bugs (less correct codes) and issues related to parallel programming.
FP has a strong mathematical background (Category theory..etc). OOP not. FP's success is based on the math behind the scene, which leads to develop correct code. If you use a FP language without adhiring to FP principals or mathematical concepts (rules), you still can produce inferior code. So, no FP language (Scala, Clojure..) will save you from a writing *BAD* code. What saves you is the math behind FP.
So now. Think of this. How wonderful it will be If we find OOP's mathematical theory. Currently GOF and other design patterns are the saviour of OOP. But non of those are based on math. I think the reason we couldn't find a mathematical backing for OOP is not OOP's fault. OOP is much closer to how humans think (Object and skeuomorphism), so certainly, if there is any mathematical theory which backs OOP, it should not be from 1800s (as such - Category theory for FP). Such theory should be a complex or may be not yet even devised (Quantum Mathematics ?)
So, Is our decision to switch to FP from OOP for correctness based on our lack of knowledge about modern mathematics ?
These days (2000+) people use FP a lot. The reason ? It is easy to develop much correct (less bugs) code with FP. The reason ? FP is backed by pure mathematics. Some math theories related to FP are form 1800s.
On the other hand, OOP with non FP (object oriented programming) is called an old paradigm. The problem with the *old* OOP style is, bugs (less correct codes) and issues related to parallel programming.
FP has a strong mathematical background (Category theory..etc). OOP not. FP's success is based on the math behind the scene, which leads to develop correct code. If you use a FP language without adhiring to FP principals or mathematical concepts (rules), you still can produce inferior code. So, no FP language (Scala, Clojure..) will save you from a writing *BAD* code. What saves you is the math behind FP.
So now. Think of this. How wonderful it will be If we find OOP's mathematical theory. Currently GOF and other design patterns are the saviour of OOP. But non of those are based on math. I think the reason we couldn't find a mathematical backing for OOP is not OOP's fault. OOP is much closer to how humans think (Object and skeuomorphism), so certainly, if there is any mathematical theory which backs OOP, it should not be from 1800s (as such - Category theory for FP). Such theory should be a complex or may be not yet even devised (Quantum Mathematics ?)
So, Is our decision to switch to FP from OOP for correctness based on our lack of knowledge about modern mathematics ?
No comments:
Post a Comment