Perhaps your experience with OO programming is atypical? A lot of my early work was centered around UIs which made heavy use of inheritance and mutation. Being a novice, my own work followed this pattern too. A lot of UIs still work this way. React has to explicitly spell out <https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/state-and-lifecycle.html#do-not-modify-state-directly> for you not to modify state directly.
In OO, mutation is very easy to do because of `this`. Even when you know better it requires a lot of discipline to do what you "should" do rather than what is easy. Kudos on you for having that, but it is certainly not a universal. On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:55:54 AM UTC-5, Dave Ford wrote: > > There is a line from the docs that I am trying to understand: "Elm > encourages a strict separation of data and logic, and the ability to say > this is primarily used to break this separation. This is a systemic > problem in Object Oriented languages that Elm is purposely avoiding." > > What is the systemic problem being reference? Is it the [lack of] "separation > of data and logic" or "the ability to say this"? > > I have been programming in Java (an OO language) for a long time. I can > name dozens of systemic problems in the language. But the ability to say > "this" is not one of them. Nor is it the commingling of data and logic. > > Please help me to understand what the author is talking about. > > Thanks. > > Side note: "this" *is* a problem in JavaScript. But not in OO generally. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
