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

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

Related posts about object-oriented

Related posts about functional-programming