

Which Is More Beautiful Architecture - FP or OOP? - Anon84
http://codebetter.com/blogs/matthew.podwysocki/archive/2009/03/09/which-is-more-beautiful-architecture-fp-or-oop.aspx

======
andr
In the spirit of this article/book, when I interview people I ask them to have
an apple or an orange and judge them entirely based on the fruit they choose.

~~~
jrockway
I also thought the fixation on Eiffel was odd. Who cares which OO language you
choose when you are only worrying about concepts? The reason to use a "real"
language would be for its libraries and implementation. For explaining the
concepts, it doesn't matter what you use. (Although Java and C++ would be
particularly poor choices for explaining OO concepts.)

I was pleased to hear Haskell being called mainstream, however.

Other than that, I didn't get anything out of this article. It contained some
words, but they didn't really make much sense.

~~~
russell
No surprise, given that Bertrand Meyer is the author of the chapter under
review. He is the father of Eiffel.

~~~
jrockway
Ah, my first sentence was very unclear. I meant to say that I thought it was
odd that the blog author made so many comments about Eiffel. I think it's a
fine choice for discussing OO, especially if you are the author of the
language :)

------
speek
OCaml, anybody?

Best of both worlds.

My school is currently considering a switch of their first year curriculum
(comp sci) from scheme and java to scheme and Ocaml. They teach java using
functional concepts, and java isn't too keen on being used functionally.

~~~
blasdel
Please don't hold up Ocaml as OO -- the object system sucks and noone uses it.

