Nothing wrong with classes in functional programming though. Just return a new instance of the class from your method, rather than mutating an existing instance.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Right, I think the two aren't as different as they appear. You can think of a closure as an object with just one method.

If OO programming is fundamentally about objects sending messages to each other, then there are many ways to approach that. Some of those ways are totally compatible with functional programming.

The legacy of C++ has dominated what OOP is "supposed" to be, but it doesn't have to work like that.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Javascript:

I heard you like mutating class data so I'm mutating the data you can put in your class data, dawg.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

JavaScript: a language for mutants.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

To be fair to JavaScript (I feel gross just saying that), it does have the ability to do some more functional-like programming as well. For example, many of its more recent array methods like filter, map, and reduce are pure functions.

[–] amon@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Classes are just another way to define an object. Heck even Lisp has objects!