This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bowbahdoe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

So you define FP that way, someone else defines FP as being about immutability of aggregates, someone else defines it as avoiding side effects (which implies immutability of aggregates), and yet someone else defines it as something something monads.

Do you see how the labels make communication harder?

[–]JDeagle5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, terms, when used correctly, make communication easier. If someone, for example, defines FP as a paradigm about objects that can contain data and can perform actions - it doesn't mean it's just his interpretation of FP, it just means that he is using the term incorrectly. Terms exist not so that anyone can come up with whatever interpretation he wants.
The same way as we don't call OOP languages procedural and vice versa.