Skip to main content

functional vs oo

well it's been a while and I have come to trivial but usefull conclusions lately.
Once I thought functional programming was fundamentaly diffrent then
oo style programming, but I actually realized how well many aspects
of fp match to elements of oop;

Functions are simply Objects,
Closures are anonymous class,
certain design patterns ressemble
monads(decorator, chain of reponsibility,...)

oo style programming can be seen as a restricted variation of functional programming.

That matters because the key aspects of oop is encapsulation and
information hiding. This can easyly be achieved in fp through the
use of closures and the fact that functions can be treated like
any other data.

In oop very explicit notations usually exists, wich couple
certain functions to certain data through the notion of objects. Both, to increase readability of complex programms, and to lighten the restrictions that come with encapsulation, an explicit notion of inheritance is used.

While all this seems pretty obvious to most, frankly, I did not
appreciate oop after doing a a bit of fp, until I found myself reading through some javascript code that I wanted to optimize.
The code was using a many closures like this, which I removed
by placing the variables that the closures contained in
properties of objects, that also contained the functions
corresponding to the closures' code.

When I was finished I had not only increased speed by 40-60%
but was also surprised by the fact that my code looked a lot
like good oo-style code.

So in my opinion every programmer should learn to think functional
in order to get a hold of what the importance of encapsulation and code reuse.

That said, most javascript interpreters(javascript by itself not a purely functional language like haskell anyway) could do this manual optimization of closures automatically.

It is rumored that modern lisp systems and erlang(using HiPE) interpreters/compilers are very close to compiled "C" code performance:
See i.e.

But to emphasis my point of oop vs fp regard this page:

That's it for today.


Popular posts from this blog

Keys, Values and Rules: Three Important Shake Concepts

The title was a click-bait! This article will actually try to explain five instead of three important notions in Shake.

These are:
RulesKeysValuesThe Build DatabaseActions
This short blog post was inspired by the hurdles with my Shake based build, after the new Shake version was released, which had breaking API changes.

Jump to the next section if you are not interested in the why and how of this blog post.

Shake is rule based build system much like GNU make. Like make it is robust, unlike make, it is pretty fast and supports dynamic build dependencies.

But you knew all that already, if you are the target audience of this post, since this post is about me explaining to myself by explaining to you, how that build tool, I used for years, actually works.

Although I used it for years, I never read the paper or wrapped my head around it more than absolutely necessary to get the job done.

When Shake was updated to version 0.16.x, the internal API for custom rules was removed. Until then I w…

Lazy Evaluation(there be dragons and basement cats)

Lazy Evaluation and "undefined"
I am on the road to being a haskell programmer, and it still is a long way to go. Yesterday I had some nice guys from #haskell explain to me lazy evaluation.

Take a look at this code:

Prelude> let x = undefined in "hello world"
"hello world"

Because of Haskells lazyness, x will not be evaluated because it is not used, hence undefined will not be evaluated and no exception will occur.

The evaluation of "undefined" will result in a runtime exception:

Prelude> undefined
*** Exception: Prelude.undefined

Strictness means that the result of a function is undefined, if one of the arguments, the function is applied to, is undefined.
Classical programming languages are strict. The following example in Java will demonstrate this. When the programm is run, it will throw a RuntimeException, although the variable "evilX" is never actually used, strictness requires that all
arguments of a fu…

Erlang mock - erlymock

The project has evolved and can be found here: ErlyMock

Some features

Easy to use
Design based on easymock
Works together with otp: can be used even if the clut is called from another process, by invoking mock:verify_after_last_call(Mock,optional: timeout)
custom return functions
predefined return functions for returning values, receiving message, throwing exceptions, etc..
erlymock automatically purges all modules that were mocked, after verify()
Custom argument matchers:

%% Orderchecking types: in_order, out_of_order, stub;
%% Answering: {return, ...}|{error, ...}|{throw, ...}|{exit, ...}|{rec_msg, Pid}|{function, Fun(Args) -> RetVal}
expect(Mock, Type, Module, Function, Arguments, Answer = {AT, _}) when AT==return;AT==error;AT==throw;AT==exit;AT==rec_msg;AT==function ->
call(Mock, {expect, Type, Module, Function, length(Arguments), {Arguments, Answer}}).

%% this version of expect is suited for useing custom argument matchers
expect(Mock, Type, Module, Fun, …