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.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 hours 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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 3 hours 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.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

JavaScript: a language for mutants.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours 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.

[–] amon@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

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