That is quite a bold claim. Can we define what is a "natural" way of programming? From my experience you are exposed to one or many programming paradigms and then, when required, you pick the one that works best for you, your problem or your team.
I still see value in modeling some particular problems with OOP and let the underlying model do the heavy-lifting. I know that under the hood every `subject.action(object)` has it corresponding `mangled_action(subject, object)`.
By the way, in our culture, the first exposure we have to functions as children is through infix operations: +, -, *, /. I would not say it is "natural". Prefix and postix operations are not "natural" either. You pick which one works best for you.
I guess I mean that it's not the first thing people reach for unless they know about it. They have some data and want to write a function to do something.
But yeh its probably a too broad statement not worth debating on definitions.
That is quite a bold claim. Can we define what is a "natural" way of programming? From my experience you are exposed to one or many programming paradigms and then, when required, you pick the one that works best for you, your problem or your team.
I still see value in modeling some particular problems with OOP and let the underlying model do the heavy-lifting. I know that under the hood every `subject.action(object)` has it corresponding `mangled_action(subject, object)`.
By the way, in our culture, the first exposure we have to functions as children is through infix operations: +, -, *, /. I would not say it is "natural". Prefix and postix operations are not "natural" either. You pick which one works best for you.