[mm007emko]

I dare to disagree - I still think that functional programming is a FAD of the day right now. Like object oriented was the FAD of the day in the 1990s and many then procedural languages saw OOP extensions on top of them (Perl where you need a bless() to work with an object? :-D ) and some even were like "yeah everything is an object so let's wrap every procedure into a class and use Command Pattern instead of closures and build a Kingdom of Nouns where people will name their classes after design patterns and everything will be perfect with a cup of hot Java").

Nowadays C++ has closures. What will become the FAD of the day in 10 years? Will wee see embedded Prolog in C# 12 or C++31? Who knows? Like OOP has been with us since 1968? and hasn't disappeared anywhere, functional programming features will not disappear from mainstream languages. But the "cool new shiny silver bullet" will be something else. Like Simula-68 and Smalltalk-80 paved way for OOP, Haskell and OCaml (et. al.) have been paving way for functional programming and Prolog and Datalog have been paving way for logical programming. They won't become mainstream when logical programming becomes the FAD of the day.

BTW you mentioned you taught a couple of junior programmers an ML-ish language. That's awesome! We all (programming community) need more legends like you.

[wk_end]

Just a heads up: the word "fad" isn't an acronym, there's no need to capitalize it (and it looks strange to) the way both you and the person you're replying to are.

[mm007emko]

Thanks. English is not my native language.

[DeathArrow]

>fad

By definition, fad is an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze. I don't see OOP enthusiasm to be short lived.

Many are still living in the Kingdom of Nouns, are follow Uncle Bob's preaching with due diligence and judge you harshly if you don't make everything a class and don't use lots of design patterns even if they are not needed.

[zelphirkalt]

> [...] and some even were like "yeah everything is an object so let's wrap every procedure into a class and use Command Pattern instead of closures and build a Kingdom of Nouns where people will name their classes after design patterns and everything will be perfect with a cup of hot Java").

Without verdict about what else you wrote: What a fitting description, "kingdom of nouns". I'll steal that for my next anti-mainstream-OOP-everything-must-be-a-class-rant, if you do not mind.

[kaba0]

I believe that expression originates from this blog post: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...

[Hedepig]

When you say "fad", do you also mean over-hyped?

[mm007emko]

In this case, yes.