+1 abstract and 0 Neutral.
I thought the imperative vs object oriented was strange, since they are the same thing.
I thought the imperative vs object oriented was strange, since they are the same thing.
They’re all imperative programs though. “OO vs Imperative” isn’t the right name for that design choice.
C++ and Java are imperative languages because functions are expressed as a list of imperative statements. But there’s nothing inherently imperative about structs and classes. Or any of the concepts of OO. You could have encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism in a functional language just fine if you wanted to. Haskell fits the bill already - well, depending on your definition of OO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrY6xrWp3Gs To summarize: Block scope is procedural. Wrapping that up in other abstractions like objects, which are fancy closures, eventually ends up in OO.
When talking about OO, people often conflate the data design with the program abstractions. Ofc you program differently in languages that have dedicated data structures and idioms around domain driven design^1, which take advantage of imperative execution within those mechanisms as well.
eg Java Spring - Spring has a lifecycle. It's imperative. Beans and other annotations have a lifecycle. It's also imperative.
^1 Domain driven design is still the norm and any efficiency observed from circumventing (or ignoring) the design is considered novel, which should inform the industry that there might be a better way. Good enough wins out again.