Is functional programming a superset of object oriented?
Posted
by
Jimmy Hoffa
on Programmers
See other posts from Programmers
or by Jimmy Hoffa
Published on 2012-09-03T05:47:10Z
Indexed on
2012/09/03
9:48 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 350
object-oriented
|functional-programming
The more functional programming I do, the more I feel like it adds an extra layer of abstraction that seems like how an onion's layer is- all encompassing of the previous layers.
I don't know if this is true so going off the OOP principles I've worked with for years, can anyone explain how functional does or doesn't accurately depict any of them: Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, Polymorphism
I think we can all say, yes it has encapsulation via tuples, or do tuples count technically as fact of "functional programming" or are they just a utility of the language?
I know Haskell can meet the "interfaces" requirement, but again not certain if it's method is a fact of functional? I'm guessing that the fact that functors have a mathematical basis you could say those are a definite built in expectation of functional, perhaps?
Please, detail how you think functional does or does not fulfill the 4 principles of OOP.
© Programmers or respective owner