FP is a >>syntax<< (not architecture design tool) primarily for abstracting server-side programming to a math equation… *not building overall architecture. It’s like saying flex is better than css grid for designing layouts.
And what is not syntax in FP is borrowed from OO.
Both OO and FP are equal. . . in their shortcomings.
There is an equal amount of awful code written in both paradigms. But…
But best code in FP doesn’t hold a candle to best code written as OO code. On the basis that code is not about what something looks like (or relates to — the mathematical perspective) but on the logic of purpose design — architecture.
Or like believing that an argument glorifying a scripting language library vs. a designed programming language isn’t just smoke and has a fire to it.
Why not take Ferrari to Nürburgring where it belongs and use the C++ language to discriminate against OO? Well, you can’t do that according to those who worship FP. But at the same time you don’t really want to know why C++ programmers do not use their favorite language to bash FP:
They don’t have to.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes 2 claps 1 amen