Search Results

According to Rumbaugh et al., "Object-Oriented Modelling and Design", objects are characterized by the following features: Identity: data is quantized into discrete, distinguishable entities, called …

I think using mutable objects stems from imperative thinking: you compute a result by changing the content of mutable variables step by step (computation by side effect). If you think functionally, y …

I find the following intuition useful to compare OOP and FP. Rather than considering FP as a superset of OOP, think of OOP and FP as two alternative ways of looking at a similar underlying computatio …

You can think of an object as a closure that closes over the member variables of the object and, each time it is invoked with a method name, it returns a method implementation. You can then apply the …

Disclaimer This solution is not object-oriented, but maybe still interesting. TL;DR Going with your first idea (have Update return a list of Organisms), in Haskell you can define a type Organism, …

One solution could be to use smart pointers (for example, in Qt you have the class QPointer) instead of references: as soon as an object is destroyed, a smart pointer that was pointing to it will be s …

In an answer to this question (written by Pete) there are some considerations about OOP versus FP. In particular, it is suggested that FP languages are not very suitable for modelling (persistent) obj …

I was recently considering that sometimes several objects depend on each other (e.g. if they contain cyclic references) and therefore it would be useful to create them as part of one atomic operation …

Consider a method m of a class A in an object-oriented language like Java or C++. In the body of the method m it is possible to reference the member variables of the object on which the method is inv …

I cite two points from another answer, because they capture exactly the reasons why I still use C from time to time (it is not my main language of choice, though): C is simple. It lacks the expressi …

I also learnt object-oriented programming coming from procedural programming (Pascal and C) so I can understand the difficulty of the switch: you have to start thinking differently, and you already ha …

EDITED First of all I would like to say that I never found OOP hard, or harder than other programming paradigms. Programming is inherently hard because it tries to solve problems from the real world …

It is not true that an anonymous function can only hold state that ceases to exist when the function finishes execution. Take the following example in Common Lisp: (defun number-strings (ss) (let …

You would probably have to turn all your code inside out since OOP and FP have two opposite approaches to organizing code. OOP organizes code around types (classes): different classes can implement t …

I would like to stress an aspect that I find important and that has not been covered in the other answers. First of all, I think that the representational gap between problems and solutions can be mo …