I'd prefer readability to suffer because the fold over a monad needs something clever that requires a bit of reasoning to understand than because vast amounts of "readable" boilerplate (for example, trivial getters and setters) hide a needle in a haystack.
I haven't seen evidence of reduced getters & setters in my day to day yet - they still seem pretty prevalent when OOP comes into the picture. I'd even say they got a bit worse because now it's excessive getters and setters with gigantic JavaDoc style comments all around them. If I see "@returns id integer The ID" one more time I'll be tempted to throw my monitor out the window.
What are you talking about? Get setters used to be 10 lines long like:
int id;
public int Id
{
get {
return id;
}
set(val) {
id = val;
}
}
They're now one liners, and obviously necessary
public int Id { get; set; }
I don't keep up with Java any more, but C# has super short shortcuts for assignment like:
public int Id { get; set; } => generateId();
If you, or your company, are misusing a completely optional documentation feature, which you definitely should not be using to annote obvious stuff like IDs, that's your problem, not OOPs.
Switching to a functional language won't save your monitor, you'll still be forced to write bad code if doing stupid things like that are in your style guide.
> If I see "@returns id integer The ID" one more time I'll be tempted to throw my monitor out the window.
I honestly believe we're in a dire need for a more up-to-date metaphor that lets us better express our anger at a computer, due to monitors becoming paper thin and lightweight in the past decade or so.
> > If I see "@returns id integer The ID" one more time I'll be tempted to throw my monitor out the window.
> I honestly believe we're in a dire need for a more up-to-date metaphor that lets us express our anger at a computer, due to monitors becoming paper thin and lightweight in the past decade or so.
My experience may not be representative, but I believe I have encountered variants of "hurl the keyboard at the monitor" more often than "monitor out the window".
I think HelloNurse's point was less that a fold is inherently clever or subtle (as you say, it isn't), and more that, if there is something clever or subtle involved, the lesser verbosity of the fold makes it easier to see than would a more familiar, boilerplate-heavy approach in which the clever or subtle point could be lost.
