Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Continuous Delivery" channel.

  1. So what does it take NOT to be "a tool in the toolbox"? Because OOP has NO agreed-upon definition and NO theory behind it. If that doesn't suffice to make it a non-tool, what would make it a non-tool?
    1
  2.  @amigalemming  It does make sense because OOP does not usually care about algebraic typing so you can't get those benefits there. OCaml is Functional but has typed Objects that are nevertheless more limited than e.g. Ruby objects but they're still algebraic and in practice there is seldom a reason to use Objects in OCaml and mostly they're not used there.
    1
  3.  @jcd-k2s  They are limited by algebra which is purposefully put there to help the programmer type-check their code.
    1
  4.  @jcd-k2s  FP languages are purposefully limited by the algebraic type-checker to disallow many invalid programs.
    1
  5. Bingo. Vote parent up.
    1
  6.  @mskiptr  capabilities are not FP. You can use something akin to Algebraic Effects in Rust to get pure.
    1
  7. 12:00 - The first one is definitely true, it's called the Curry-Howard Isomorphism.
    1