Skip to main content

FOOP

I have been caught at odds when asked about some of the key differences between Object Oriented Programming and Functional Programming. In fact I’ve felt somewhat like a fraud, in that I regularly work in both paradigms. I often keep in mind the many of the precepts of functional design in the methods of objects I am creating.
So, I was looking to see what others had to say on FOOP (Functional Object Oriented Programming - or perhaps POOF “Programming Object Oriented Functionally”?) and I came across a post on Lambda the Ultimate which let me know I am not alone.
This lead me on to further investigations on the questions I was pondering such as where the different types of programming work - and when they don’t. A good synopsis of this started on Stack Exchange of course... These readings exposed me to a key nub of the problem - concisely stated, which has the name of “The Expression Problem”.

The expression problem is well stated in the best answer in the stack exchange post:
  • Object-oriented languages are good when you have a fixed set of operations on things, and as your code evolves, you primarily add new things. This can be accomplished by adding new classes which implement existing methods, and the existing classes are left alone.
  • Functional languages are good when you have a fixed set of things, and as your code evolves, you primarily add new operations on existing things. This can be accomplished by adding new functions which compute with existing data types, and the existing functions are left alone.
A look at the expression problem in detail with some ideas towards solutions is nicel addressed in Eli Bendersky’s blog post . His post seems to fit well with the some of the original literature on the problem
This bit of diversionary reading has me puzzling over some recent designs in C#, and I am also thinking of solution to the expression problem in JavaScript (where I am not even convinced I can call it a problem).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You don't really know who you're talking to online...

The following is a story that I think highlights the assumptions that get you into trouble online... https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/threat-insight/i-knew-you-were-trouble-ta456-targets-defense-contractor-alluring-social-media This is particularly scary since we found so much utility in online connections during the pandemic and out of necessity, started trusting more online. Please note the timeline for this breach - it was a long, slow process, a key factor in many 'cons'. "Build trust" is a key first step, once someone has identified you as a party. You think...you're convinced you know who your talking to, but if you don't triangulate the identity with some non-online, ideally in-person information, you shouldn't trust. And even if you do get what seems like real-life confirmations of identity, you must look at questioning motives, needs, and keeping danger at arms-length. Online includes email, texting (sms), application chatbots, voice communicati...
Post a Comment
Read more

Threat Modeling Manifesto

Secure Your Code with Threat Modeling As a software developer, security should be a top priority. By proactively identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities, you can significantly reduce the risk of breaches and data loss. What is Threat Modeling?   Threat modeling is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing, and mitigating security threats. It involves looking at your system from a hacker's perspective to uncover weaknesses and devise strategies to protect against attacks. See the  OWASP Cheat Sheet   Why is Threat Modeling Important? Proactive Security: By anticipating potential threats, you can take steps to prevent them. Risk Mitigation: Identify and address vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Regulatory Compliance: Adhere to industry standards and regulations. Enhanced Security Posture: Strengthen your overall security posture. How to Get Started with Threat Modeling   The Threat Modeling Manifesto provides a valuable framewor...
Post a Comment
Read more

Where threat modeling can shine - an example from the EU MDCG-2019

From the  EU  MDCG 2019-16 Guidance on Cybersecurity for medical devices, December 2019 , this is the guidance on foreseeable risks.  Medical device manufacturers should ensure that a medical device is designed and manufactured in a way that ensures that the risks associated with reasonably foreseeable environmental conditions are removed or minimised. This may include the infield monitoring of the software’s vulnerabilities and the possibility to perform a device update (outside the context of a field safety corrective action) through, for example delivering patches to ensure the continued security of the device. During the risk management process, the manufacturer should foresee or evaluate the potential exploitation of those vulnerabilities that may be a result of reasonably foreseeable misuse. This, however, may depend on the specific situation. For example, using an unsecured memory-stick to enter data into a medical IT system can be considered “reasonably foreseeabl...
Post a Comment
Read more