Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Ditch Your Favorite Programming Paradigm | Prime Reacts" video.

For me the question boils down to a few simple concepts, 1. The object-oriented paradigm revolves around passing data between unified domains, not necessarily "classes" or "structs". That means you send information back and forth and try to make each specific domain responsible for interacting with that dataset within that scope of states. 2. The functional paradigm revolves around making code immediately obvious in a declarative way, even if that involves using data encapsulation methods and the like. The code must read fluently and it must be immediately obvious the result of an expression not by an individual stream of parts, but by the complete expression (and, of course, it must be decomposable). 3. The procedural paradigm revolves around ordering things in a specific, controlled way, not through statements or units, but through small, specific, determined logical steps that must modify or change the data as they are performed. The scope of a procedural code is always linear and it must be possible to read and understand linearly. To that extent, I can understand that all paradigms employ common concepts and can be summarized to common notions present individually in each of them, but which are not immediately reducible to these, as a complex system. Each of them has its place and I can understand why multi-paradigm languages won and purely functional or purely object-oriented languages became less and less popular.
56
@zacharychristy8928 So, I agree with you that the notion of "premature optimization" is still completely valid (actually, it just doesn't make sense to say that it's "invalid", it's not a timing problem). But at the same time I think your statement is complicated, all computing problems can be boiled down to "data and transformations", literally all of them. Data-oriented programming is an excellent way to solve many architectural problems while also solving performance problems (of course, it doesn't solve all or is ideal for all types of problems, but overall it can solve most of them efficiently and cleanly).
2
The thing with Rust is that it is meant to be a low-level language that is both concise and has immutable data structures, this is only possible because of the borrow-checker. So it's a "special case" to be analyzed, and it doesn't exactly follow the notion of "immutability" that functional programming embraces. It manages to solve programming mutability problems to a large extent (not completely, as this is a hard problem).
1
@MarcelRobitaille I didn't say to dismiss immutability, it's actually an incredibly powerful way to solve problems and make your code more predictable and cleaner. The point is just that immutability has its cost, and that Rust manages to solve at least a portion of the problems that immutability would solve without that cost (such as the overall predictability of the data). Note: Actually Rust doesn't remove this cost, it moves it partially from the runtime to the programmer, but in terms of performance it "removes" it.
1