8 months of OCaml after 8 years of Haskell in production

[atravers]

@Abab9579

Hmm, this sounds more like a praise for encapsulation. Internal details are hidden from outside, so theoretically each component should do their job independently.

…which can be achieved by using the monadic type ST s a and runST:

runST :: (forall s . ST s a) -> a

But if you’re referring to that other leakier variety:

• Subtyping, Subclassing, and Trouble with OOP

• Object-Oriented Cult: A Slightly Skeptical View on the Object-Oriented Programming

• USENIX - Invited Talk: Objecting to Objects

• http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end

• Bad Engineering Properties of Object-Oriented Language

• Ten Things I Hate About Object-Oriented Programming — The JOT Blog

• So, you want to write software?: Life Without Objects

• Programming without objects - falkoriemenschneider.de

• https://thenewstack.io/why-are-so-many-developers-hating-on-object-oriented-programming

• Your Code: OOP or POO?

• Switching from OOP to Functional Programming | by Oleksii Avramenko | Medium

• Why OO Sucks

• https://www.embedded.com/nuts-to-oop

• Don't Distract New Programmers with OOP

…amongst others! So I would suggest that you be as flexible as possible, and prepare for the high possibility that a certain programming-language paradigm that you still love could vanish in a few years.

---

@Abab9579

Career wise, IMHO (and I am less certain about this one but) a better approach would be to leave programming industry as a whole.

Enjoy your new career, and try not to worry about the rest of us…

---

@silky

As always, everything is already politicized […]

IDEAL WORLD collocation | meaning and examples of use