Thinking in FP vs OOP for large scale apps => Re: [plt-scheme] Imperative programming : missing the flow

On 5/15/07, Gene Sullivan <gene_sullivan at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Why one RATHER than the other?
> > As one CAN do BOTH Functional programming and OOP via Scheme one can mix
> and match.
> > There are several OOP packages to pick from out of SLIB, for instance.
> > If one is comfortable using OOP with imperative flow then one can do
> this.
> > However one can use OOP methods via functional programming methods, as
> well.


Thanks Gene - yes I agree that one can use both - we are on the same page
here.

However, I am probably not clear in my message that I am interested in
thinking in FP for large scale apps, i.e. how I can use FP for
design/modeling, so I can better conceive a large application structured in
functional style.  Cuz right now, I can't see how the FP organization is
easier than OOP, and I am interested to see if others have explored the path
to construct large scale functional program before and hopefully I can pick
up a thing or two from other's experiences and wisdoms ;)

Thank for the links - appreciated.
yinso

> Here is a top-down view of SLIB
> >  http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/slib_toc.html
>
> > Here is a link to YASOS ... `Yet Another Scheme Object System'
> >   http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/slib_3.html#SEC44
>
> > Perhaps it might be easier for you to first discover how to use OOP with
> Scheme, then work in less
> > imperative features and more functional programming features over time?
>
> > No further comments from me below.
>
> > All the best,
> >   Gene Sullivan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20070515/762c58e3/attachment.html>