Hacker News Reader

Comment by moffkalast | Hacker News Reader

> that results in more education time for programers, which no company is willing to pay for

That's why you finally stop teaching Java in high schools.

I was going to say OOP aside from the basic animals and calls example, takes years of indoctrination for people to find it the simple default way to do things.

Functional programming is much simpler, but we don't spend years hammering the concept into people's brains.

I program Java to earn my living and any hierarchy deeper than two is a bad smell for me. Not that it cannot have its place, but most of the time you're right, some find so fascinating to inherit everything from everything...

I remember sitting in these lectures thinking, why not just use a function without all the boilerplate? And a decade later the programming world finally came back to some semblance of sanity.

Because for some reason most OO learning material seems to be focused on syntax and language features, not design. It's a real shame.

Ah yes, functional programming is indeed so much simpler.

I'll just use a Kleisli

With helping acquaintances learning programming from 0, I have a sample size of n = 2 that starting with FP got them to grok basic programming within a very short amount of time.

And IME moving from FP to OOP is MUCH easier than the other way around.

Don't really have the knowledge to compare iterative vs functional for a complete beginner, though I suspect that even there moving from FP to iterative is easier.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com