Juergen Pfitzenmaier wrote:
>
> Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > Do you not like OO at all?
>
> what good is OO for ? ;) OO gives me a framework/language to talk
> about objects (read entities) and claims that with objects programmers
> have the right tool to model real-world entities.
> But the main thing in the real-world are *not* entities, the whole
> thing is about applying some function to these - possibly nonexisting -
> entities. And OO gives me no tools to handle these functions.
>
> ok a bit provocative. I still see something good in OO. It provides
> a level of abstraction that wasn't there before but it's not enough.
>
> ciao pfitzen
It's debatable whether or not a FP _really needs_ OO. But there are 2
things that come out of OO, which can be really nice: overloading and
inheritance. True, they aren't strictly necessary when you have
polymorphic types. But sometimes, syntactic sugar really is a Good
Thing. I don't have to retype or copy-and-paste. Neither do I have to
rework all the functions to be more "generic". It may not be good
programming practice, but hey, we can't always be perfect.
- Michael Hobbs
