Vooral deze passage:
"Imperative languages such as Java and C++ have come to be known as “high ceremony” languages because of the often mind-numbing amount of syntactic boilerplate and complex object interaction patterns they impose just to get relatively simple applications up and running. Many developers turn to interactive development environments (IDEs) to help them manage this verbosity and complexity, but, in my opinion, this just works around the real problem rather than solves it."
en:
"Using the wrong languages like this can impose a much larger tax on development efficiency than you might realize. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water on the stove, eventually boiling to its demise as the water temperature slowly increases because it can’t sense the changes until it’s too late, developers who primarily use popular imperative languages like Java and C++ can become so accustomed to the boilerplate, verbosity, and ceremony these
languages require that they simply don’t realize just how inefficient their development efforts really are. Given how defensive such languages’ users can often be, perhaps this form
of programming language loyalty is a less sinister variant of Stockholm syndrome, where captives counterintuitively develop a sense of devotion and emotional attachment to
their captors."
Prachtig! En eerlijk gezegd herkenbaar.
Maar waar het echt om gaat is natuurlijk: zijn die FPs echt beter? Hoe belangrijk is de relatie met REST in dit verband?
Mijn (voorlopig slechts) intuïtie is: ja. Maar hoe verhoudt OO zich tot dit verhaal?
Ja, Java is (min of meer) imperatief, maar dat hoeft niet. Vinoski zelf noemt Ruby, en diezelfde mechanismen ken ik nog van SmallTalk (waar Ruby sterk aan doet denken, uiteraard).
