… but the problem is made difficult as it’s often hard to shift a flocking consensus towards an ontology without dragging everyone into a bell curve-esq distribution focused on output.
Are you saying that building the consensus towards the thinking of "reality and being" will be hard because most people are average programmers? If not, can you please elaborate?
The skeptic in me is even apt to say that the large migration towards functional programming is a formal rejection of this sort of semiology due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the "fundamental misunderstanding of the problem"? Which problem specifically are you referring to?
This post mentions two views/problems:
- The affordance in a cybernetic environment
- The main one, which is affordance towards a programmer in the environment of reality, where you build APIs with affordance in mind for a person to understand.
For the second point, it doesn't need to be Object Oriented, that was just an example. It can be functional. You just need to make sure a function affords the programmer to use that function efficiently. Haskell and other functional languages reduce the number of actions (mistakes) a code affords a programmer to do by having stricter static validations.
In the first point, though, it's hard to define a way to build affordance in the cybernetic environment with a functional mindset, since we don't have whatever concept it is of OOP "objects".
Disclaimer: The article does not talk about OOP vs functional, just the possibilities of interpreting APIs as having affordance from the point of view of a cybernetic environment and from the point of view of the developers consuming the code.
Good comment, thanks.
