Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • The more I read Uncle Bob's posts, the less I respect him. The guy has no idea whatsoever about what FP is. No shame in that; there's plenty I don't know either, but I least I try not to rant about it as if I did. Examples of things he gets wrong: he speaks of polymorphism as if naturally belonged to OOP or FP didn't use it (wrong), he ignores higher-order functions as the natural way to do what he calls "source inversion", "too many parenthesis" is not something found in FP (maybe he got confused with Lisp?), "true functional programming has no assignment" (oversimplification), etc. Commented Nov 29, 2014 at 16:17
  • It drives me mad that Uncle Bob feels confident enough to write about the differences/similarities between OOP and FP when he clearly is familiar with only one of the two! Commented Nov 29, 2014 at 16:21
  • 1
    I can't really comment on the FP aspects of the article, as my functional experience is rather limited, but from the limited perspective of defining what the critical core of OOP is, I think the article's spot on. Commented Nov 29, 2014 at 16:47
  • I just found the talk which has the slide Uncle Bob was ranting against. It's interesting. If I were a software engineering guru and published author like Uncle Bob, I would have taken the effort to find the talk and see what it has to say. Maybe, just maybe, he's just mistaken about FP because he's unfamiliar about it. But he gives no indication in his post he did so, which doesn't surprise me... Commented Nov 30, 2014 at 18:07