Neither was initially designed as FP. The use of the keyword "function" doesn't make a programming language "functional". I'm not an expert on Python but I've worked with JS since it was called Netscape Mocha/LiveScript. With the exception of functions as first-class objects (which few treated as such at the time) it was as procedural as FORTRAN. On the other hand, it was created with Sun's cooperation and under the strong influence of Java (and OOP in general) from day one. So yes, I can argue all day that FP in JS is a recent "invasion".
But that's largely irrelevant. My point is, inheritance and encapsulation are far from "dead and buried", they are important concepts which can be useful and profitable.
Nobody said they were design as FP. I say that JS was function-first as that was the main construct. Sure, you can say functions as first-class objects, which is truly a painful twist of concepts if that's what you want to see. I know people really wanted to force JS constructs into object-friendly usage patters (prototype, anyone) but it's a stretch to say there were Java "strong" influences back in the day. Objects are Java's code and there were no such things then (scoped variables protected/private/etc and funny inheritance was actually a composition of functions).
Thanks for sharing that article, though from my perspective it basically enforces my point. Inheritance defines relationships between objects (which prevents code reuse outside of a given project) and moreover, the author makes a great point that there's a right way to use inheritance. But that definition is his own convention outside if the definition of inheritance itself. Almost every developer of a given seniority has a theory and practice about the "right" way to use, despite the shortcomings on reliability and maintainability - some of which comes exactly from the need to enforce a set of arbitrary conventions about the right way to tackle inheritance. You need but a slip of code review to go down a slippery slope towards messiness (not to mention once you setup a hierarchy, nobody will ever be able to change it - there's a basic tenet to uphold agility in development practices that says "if you're face with two solutions to a problem, go with the one that's easier to change later on").
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Neither was initially designed as FP. The use of the keyword "function" doesn't make a programming language "functional". I'm not an expert on Python but I've worked with JS since it was called Netscape Mocha/LiveScript. With the exception of functions as first-class objects (which few treated as such at the time) it was as procedural as FORTRAN. On the other hand, it was created with Sun's cooperation and under the strong influence of Java (and OOP in general) from day one. So yes, I can argue all day that FP in JS is a recent "invasion".
But that's largely irrelevant. My point is, inheritance and encapsulation are far from "dead and buried", they are important concepts which can be useful and profitable.
Nobody said they were design as FP. I say that JS was function-first as that was the main construct. Sure, you can say functions as first-class objects, which is truly a painful twist of concepts if that's what you want to see. I know people really wanted to force JS constructs into object-friendly usage patters (prototype, anyone) but it's a stretch to say there were Java "strong" influences back in the day. Objects are Java's code and there were no such things then (scoped variables protected/private/etc and funny inheritance was actually a composition of functions).
Thanks for sharing that article, though from my perspective it basically enforces my point. Inheritance defines relationships between objects (which prevents code reuse outside of a given project) and moreover, the author makes a great point that there's a right way to use inheritance. But that definition is his own convention outside if the definition of inheritance itself. Almost every developer of a given seniority has a theory and practice about the "right" way to use, despite the shortcomings on reliability and maintainability - some of which comes exactly from the need to enforce a set of arbitrary conventions about the right way to tackle inheritance. You need but a slip of code review to go down a slippery slope towards messiness (not to mention once you setup a hierarchy, nobody will ever be able to change it - there's a basic tenet to uphold agility in development practices that says "if you're face with two solutions to a problem, go with the one that's easier to change later on").