> I think you're right that if FP is a trap at one end of the fallacy, pure OOP exists at the other.
I disagree; what spectrum are those on opposite ends of? Encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance are entirely compatible with FP, and immutability is entirely compatible with OOP. Functions and objects are equivalent. Most mainstream OO culture is centred around procedural programming, but it's the procedural parts that oppose a functional style, not the OO parts.
> I disagree; what spectrum are those on opposite ends of?
I also am not entirely sold on funfunfun's characterization, but if you think of this in terms of cultural hangups that cause excesses rather than concrete technical contributions then it makes some sense.
The excesses of OOP culture are distinctly different from the excesses of Functional culture.
OOP in excess looks like software architecture books with quotes from Alexander and FLW, programming as artform, etc.
Functional in excess looks like really bad descriptions of category theory promulgated by writers who couldn't tell you what group theory is good for.
So if we want to characterize these ways of programming in terms of what harmful excess looks like, then they are on sort of opposite sides of a spectrum. Where one side considers programming pure art and the other pure logic.
I'm still not sold that this is a good model of reality. But if you focus on excesses rather than useful insights, I can see what funfunfun is saying. I think.
I disagree; what spectrum are those on opposite ends of? Encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance are entirely compatible with FP, and immutability is entirely compatible with OOP. Functions and objects are equivalent. Most mainstream OO culture is centred around procedural programming, but it's the procedural parts that oppose a functional style, not the OO parts.