Popular posts

Senthil Ganesh depending on the situation, only using behavior might also be a bad thing. I wouldn't say that, in general, OO is better than FP - or FP is better than OO. Using the best tool for the job instead of always using the same hammer for every screw is also a developer's responsibility.

By the way, object composition is surely the better way to re-use functionality, however many programming languages are built on hierarchy, and using composition always means implementing workarounds. I recommend taking a look at Rust, though, which is inspired by OO and FP principles and advocates modern best practices right from the ground up. It's a young language and ecosystem, to be fair, though.

Thanks Marco Alka RUST is in my radar and I will start learning the language. I always got fascinated by ancient languages like Haskell and smalltalk which has very less syntax and never allowed developer to write something other than function or object res..,. It’s languages like cpp and java which allows developers to code using both object oriented concepts and procedural styles making the code very difficult to understand and maintain.

Haskell is very concise and easy to reason only because it forced developers to use monad for side effecting code. This made all the pure functions easy to reason.

Smalltalk code is concise because everything in the language is object, even the primitives. The only way one can get anything done in this language is via message passing.