On January 18, 2016 at 17:08:46, Anonymous ([email protected]) wrote: This mimics the behavior of OOP since just like in OOP the internal method cannot be changed (since the type is immutable). Sometimes it really does make the most sense to attach a function to an instance of a type... I don’t believe you.
Not trying to be snide, but after spending ~10 years as an “OOP programmer” (mostly Java & Ruby) and ~3 as a “FP programmer” (mostly Clojure and now Julia), I’ve come to realize that the difference between: foo.bar(baz) and: bar(foo, baz) is little more than a case of what you’re comfortable with. I could *almost* see a case for the former over the latter if you were dynamically changing the definition of `bar` (which has its own problems), but the example you gave has the type being immutable. I’m curious what scenario you’re picturing where having a method attached to an instance makes more sense than the other way around?
