• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • I don’t think that the anti-oop collective is attacking polymorphism or overloading - both are important in functional programming. And let’s add encapsulation and implementation hiding to this list.

    The argument is that OOP makes the wrong abstractions. Inheritance (as OOP models it) is quite rare on business entities. The other major example cited is that an algorithm written in the OOP style ends up distributing its code across the different classes, and therefore

    1. It is difficult to understand: the developer has to open two, three or more different classes to view the whole algorithm
    2. It is inefficient: because the algorithm is distributed over many classes and instances, as the algorithm runs, there are a lot of unnecessary calls (eg one method on one instance has to iterate over many instances of its children, and each child has to iterate over its children) and data has to pass through these function calls.

    Instead of this, the functional programmer says, you should write the algorithm as a function (or several functions) in one place, so it’s the function that walks the object structure. The navigation is done using tools like apply or map rather than a loop in a method on the parent instance.

    A key insight in this approach is that the way an algorithm walks the data structure is the responsibility of the algorithm rather than a responsibility that is shared across many classes and subclasses.

    In general, I think this is a valid point - when you are writing algorithms over the whole dataset. OOP does have some counterpoints encapsulating behaviour on just that object for example validating the object’s private members, or data processing for that object and its immediate children or peers.



  • modeler@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzCalculus made easy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I must not use jargon.

    Jargon is the mind-killer.

    Jargon is the little-death that brings total confusion. I will face the jargon. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the jargon has gone there will be clarity. Only sense will remain.




  • Their arguments included the size of the web page, and the time to display the first content, both of which were significantly better in Nue when compared to Tailwind.

    By all means argue on what is important (because what is important for your projects may be significantly different from mine), but there were many points that the author was highlighting, not just the separation of concerns. And for my projects, all these concerns are important.



  • Exactly!

    While the continents might look like they fit together, and the rock types and ages and fossils match at key points all down the coasts from Canada/Scotland all the way down to South America and South Africa, how on earth (sorry) would you explain how the continents are thousands of miles apart?

    One theory posited the earth spinning so fast centrifugal forces ripped ehat would become the moon out of the Pacific, sucking Eurasia and America into the void.

    That’s a Randall Monroe WhatIf if ever I saw one. Think of the energy involved! All life on earth would be extinct.

    So these theories were laughed out of scientific court. Until Vine and Matthew’s seminal paper on magnetic stripes being mirrored over the mid ocean ridge showed there had to be something forcing the plates apart.


  • The Catholic church is self-governed by Canon Law - its own law that’s been around since the collapse of the Roman Empire. For a good portion of this time, Canon Law superseded national laws that applied to people who weren’t priests. I think the church still privately believes that only Canon Law matters, and they can basically ignore everyone else. That’s why they have protected child abusers, rapists and all other kinds of shit their medieval claptrap says isn’t important. They are a bunch of arrogant pricks who believe themselves better than, you know, people who don’t abuse those with less power.











  • Maths and reality are different. Very different. Reality can be explored empirically while maths is logic not empirical. We can never say we are 100% sure about the rules/laws we have discovered about our reality, but we can say for sure that a maths theorem is true or false.

    Maths is a set of self-consistent tools that can be used to predict what happens in reality. The mathematical description of reality is an estimate, contains countless assumptions and inaccuracies about where things are and what properties they have. In fact in quantum physics, we literally can’t know momentum and location at the same time.

    Maths can describe (or I should say, approximate) realities that don’t exist.

    Because maths and reality are different domains, we can know different things about them using different approaches.