Functional Programming Vs Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

0
153
Functional Programming Vs Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

Functional Programming Vs Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

Data storage and manipulation techniques differ between functional programming and object-oriented programming. Data cannot be kept in objects in functional programming; instead, it can only be modified by functions. Information is saved in objects in object-oriented programming.

You may have heard about the two approaches, functional programming and Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). But do you know which one is better for your project? We’ll explore both approaches and explain why they are better. Here’s a quick comparison of the two most popular approaches. And, of course, you can always ask developers about their own experiences and opinions. So, in addition to learning about the differences, you’ll gain an appreciation for both approaches.

Ezgif.com Gif Maker 87 1

Avoiding shared state

The two main differences between OOP and Functional programming are the storage and handling of data. OOP prioritizes data over operations. Functional programming, on the other hand, avoids shared states. However, both have the same goal: to create a bug-free, functional program. The difference between them lies in the approach taken to achieve that goal. Read on to discover how OOP and FN differ in this regard.

Using a purely functional approach to programming means avoiding the use of a shared state, which is a common pitfall of OOP. A shared state requires more research and energy to detect, avoid, and correct bugs. By contrast, using a pure function approach, you can focus on a specific problem, such as a mathematical expression, that doesn’t involve a shared state. Furthermore, you’ll avoid bugs and side effects because the program will only use the data inside its scope. Functional programming languages include Erlang, Clojure, and Haskell.

As far as the shared state is concerned, this concept involves modifying variables and objects that are shared between scopes. A shared state makes tracking changes to variables difficult, leading to many errors. As a result, functional programming focuses on pure computations and immutable data structures. The key to functional programming success is that the latter is not prone to a shared state, so there’s less chance of errors and line failures.

As long as you don’t need to maintain a shared state, you can use OOP for most tasks. On the other hand, if you’re looking to add more operations to fixed things, functional programming is the way to go. If you’re trying to add more data types and behaviors, however, OOP may be the better option. This is why both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The most significant difference is that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

In OOP, classes are modeled as collections of objects. Each object has a class interface that indicates the values and functions that any instance can access. Initially, this concept was based on message passing, but it was later popularized as simple functions that invoke a corresponding object. For example, in functional programming, when you call a method, you are most likely changing the object’s value.

On the other hand, functional programming uses the concept of variables and functions instead of global variables. Functions are isolated from a shared state, which makes them easy to understand and maintain. They are easy to move, refactor, and reorganize. Moreover, because functions are independent of the outside state, they are prone to bugs related to the shared state. You can also avoid this problem by implementing hybrid solutions.

OOP developers may dismiss FP because of the lack of shared state and data. It is a trade-off between simplicity and performance. A simple example is the use of delegates and functors. Although not many development teams switch to this method, most choose to refactor the core applications and move forward with the new approach. The future of programming, however, looks to be increasingly hybrid.

Avoiding polymorphism

Many developers use the principles of inheritance and composition when programming to avoid polymorphism. As the name implies, inheritance allows a class to leverage pre-existing functionality of another class. This helps reduce code duplication and increases reusability. But it can also cause problems, particularly if the class has many members. For example, a car class might contain an object called Chauffeur. The Chauffeur may be required for the race car.

Functional programming is more efficient when you don’t use a shared state. Because the shared state requires more research and energy to avoid adverse side effects, pure functions only rely on data within their scope. In OOP, however, data can be changed after creation, making it easier to introduce bugs and create side effects elsewhere in the application. Common functional programming languages include Erlang, Haskell, and Clojure.

Using polymorphism in OOP is a good practice, but the downside is that it’s inefficient and ugly. On the other hand, interfaces and functions are far more straightforward and less complex than OOP so that you can reuse the same code multiple times. If you can’t get away with the use of interfaces, however, functional programming is an excellent choice. Once you’ve mastered the basics of OOP, you can switch to functional programming and experience both benefits!

In functional programming, code is organized around clearly defined and pure functions. All the data in a program passes through functions. These functions are single-responsibility, meaning they process data locally and return values. This is the basis for the principles of functional programming. If you’re not familiar with functional programming, you can check out this online article on the differences between functional and object-oriented programming.

Another common pitfall of OO is that it tends to use OO-style abstractions. If you’re using a functional style, however, you’re better off using a combination of both styles. So, for example, a functional style program can be built with an OO-style class, and an FP app can be built with a mix of the two.

Procedural programming, on the other hand, makes use of classes to group data and code. Creating separate classes makes modifying parts of the program easier in isolation. But with large data sets, tracking changes can be cumbersome. In addition, classes can be reused multiple times. However, the disadvantages of procedural programming are that they are prone to polymorphism, which makes them difficult to maintain.

Similarly, functional programming is better for adding operations to fixed things. However, OOP is better for adding new things, such as classes, to the system. Because OOP is more general, it requires more complex code and writing much more code than procedural programming. However, both approaches can be used simultaneously. You should decide on the right one for your program based on the kind of work you intend to do with it.

Code reuse through inheritance and composition

Composition is a powerful design technique in functional programming and far superior to inheritance. Composition allows you to swap components at runtime. In addition, a class can have multiple instances of the same class, making it easier to reuse the same code across different applications. As a result, the composition is the preferred choice for many applications. In this article, I will describe inheritance and composition and explain the benefits and drawbacks of each.

While inheritance makes code compact and easy to read, it’s also one of the most complex programming constructs. It has many traps, and even minute changes can have disastrous consequences. Inheritance is best used if you don’t want to overwrite the base methods. There’s a Liskov Substitution Principle that suggests using inheritance over composition. It encourages composition while preventing accidental overwriting.

Inheritance is an essential principle of object-oriented programming, but there are some instances where inheritance may not be appropriate. Inherited code is challenging to understand and maintain. When reused, inheritance can be beneficial, but the composition is the best option. When it comes to code reuse, inheritance is rarely necessary. Functional programming emphasizes the separation of concerns. However, many developers believe that Functional Programming and OOP are mutually exclusive.

Code reuse through inheritance and composition is another powerful programming technique. Inheritance allows child classes to inherit methods from their parent classes. They can override these methods, and the super() function can call the original methods in the parent class. Inheritance also creates “is a” relationship between parent and child classes. Thus, the objects created in a child’s class can be used again by another parent.

Object-oriented programming is an excellent design strategy but has some drawbacks. The primary benefit is that it encourages reusability. This can help prevent the creation of bloated code, which will ultimately increase the efficiency of your application. In addition, it can help you avoid coding mistakes. As a result, you can reuse your code and save time. So, if you’re considering implementing a functional programming language, you might consider this option.

Moreover, these approaches are becoming common in most languages. Functional languages allow you to reuse code across different applications without rewriting it. For example, you can use a function to call another function. You can extend the same function to create new objects and use the same data structures by using the same function. If you want to reuse the same code in different applications, you can use inheritance and composition. Similarly, you can also use the same object in different functional frameworks.