loading...

Discussion on: OOP vs Functional Programming

Collapse
daveparr profile image
Dave Parr

Neat breakdown. Within the criteria listed above, where would you put R? It is now very common to write 'tidy' R code, which stylistically pipes with the %>%. This, as far as I understand monads, seems to represent the monadic axioms. It however is not static but dynamic (as far as I understand those terms to refer to typing). It's also not a LISP, but derived from a pretty odd language in itself called S. It's also not immutable, however it encourages currying by default.

Personally, it's obviously my bag, but how to the rest of you see it fitting in above?

Collapse
kspeakman profile image
Kasey Speakman

I'm not too familiar with R, so I won't attempt to declare if/which category it might fall into. (I only went over FP/OO approaches.) But you bring up an interesting point with the pipe operator. A lot of the constructs we use in programming can be proven from category theory or other area of math. But this isn't exactly what I meant by FP with monads.

When I mentioned FP with monads, I was referring to code bases that use named category theory abstractions like Monad, Monoid, Semigroup, etc. The value proposition is enticing... instead of arbitrary abstractions (custom objects), use these known abstractions with mathematically provable properties/behaviors. And build the application up from those. Theoretically, every time someone creates a new custom type of object, you have to learn its custom rules. But basing the code on category theory abstractions, you can learn a single set of math-based objects. Unfortunately to contribute to or even read such code, a dev has to backfill a lot of knowledge from advanced math. Which is a larger barrier than understanding some custom objects. And the interactions of different category theory constructs are many and varied. So the category theory stuff doesn't turn out to be a small set of things to learn, either.