Timeline for Why is "tight coupling between functions and data" bad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 26, 2013 at 13:29 | comment | added | GlenPeterson | Actually, in Java, a lexical closure is sometimes the only simple way to ensure immutability - see my "Immutable Map" example here: glenpeterson.blogspot.com/2013/07/… | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 13:11 | comment | added | GlenPeterson | I want to qualify my earlier comment. I should have said, "Functional Programming Quote of the day - some evil is often necessary to get work done." I'm not advocating evil in general, just in the purely functional programming sense. | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 10:00 | comment | added | Izkata | @itsbruce See, "at the cost of large amounts of boiler-plate and endless subclassing (or lumpy and unstructured imperative logic)" sounds like OOP done wrong, like someone went crazy with buzzwords and what's possible in OOP at the cost of maintainable code. Even in Java, the boilerplate isn't going to be large if done right (although it will be more than, say, Python). | |
| Sep 26, 2013 at 9:11 | comment | added | itsbruce | @Izkata Unnecessary, in a type-safe language, at the cost of large amounts of boiler-plate and endless subclassing (or lumpy and unstructured imperative logic). I wouldn't call that "largely unnecessary". It`s possible, but I wouldn't want to go there if I had a sane alternative. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 18:43 | comment | added | Izkata | @itsbruce They're made largely unnecessary. The variables that would be "closed over" instead become class variables passed into the object. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 16:13 | comment | added | Benedict | I added a link to another question that talks about the evil of global state. I might have been exercising some poetic license when I said it was the 'only plus side'. I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'average programmer'. I mean a normal human being whose profession is a programmer - and though some competence level is expected, it is elitist to require that level to be that of a psychic. I agree with you - any paradigm or language that forces or encourages readable code in some way is worth celebrating. Myself, I'm not always convinced by the OO approach, but that's me. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 16:12 | comment | added | itsbruce | If OO and closures are synonymous, why have so many OO languages failed to provide explicit support for them? The C2 wiki page you cite has even more disputation (and less consensus) than is normal for that site. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:45 | history | edited | Benedict | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Your last paragraph saves the answer though. It may be the only plus side, according to you, but that's no small thing. Us so called "average programmers" actually welcome a certain amount of ceremony, certainly enough to let us know what the hell is going on. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:36 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | You haven't really explained why the things you call evil are evil; you're just calling them evil. Explain why they're evil, and you might have an answer to the gentleman's question. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:20 | history | edited | Benedict | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 135 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:05 | history | edited | Benedict | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 67 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2013 at 15:00 | comment | added | GlenPeterson | Quote of the day: "some evil is often necessary to get work done" | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 14:56 | history | answered | Benedict | CC BY-SA 3.0 |