Design Question

Recently, I've been doing more and more FP in C++, mostly in the form of function templates and heavy overloading of a single name. I really like FP for some well-defined operations, but I've also noticed that as with OOP, one could easily fall into anti-patterns of spaghetti-code if one isn't careful (eg circular dependencies, which is a bigger issue for state-based code).

My question is, when thinking about adding new functionality, how do you decide between using a FP-paradigm or a OOP-paradigm?

I'm sensing it may have to do with identifying the invariants in the problem or in the design, but I'm not sure.

For example, without an OOP model/simplification of the real world, it may not be immediately obvious what a Dog or a Cat class is (what are its states? what are its methods?). Otoh, from a FP POV, a Eat() function simply allows an Animal to turn Food into Poop and Energy. It's harder to imagine Eat() being anything else (for me, at least).

I'm looking more for C++ answers, but this question could apply to any sub-module in any language that can handle multiple paradigms.

Design Question

Recently, I've been doing more and more FP in C++, mostly in the form of function templates and lambdas, and heavy overloading of a single function name. I really like FP for some well-defined operations, but I've also noticed that as with OOP, one could easily fall into anti-patterns of spaghetti-code if one isn't careful (eg circular dependencies, which is a bigger issue for state-based code).

My question is, when thinking about adding new functionality, how do you decide between using a FP-paradigm or a OOP-paradigm?

I'm sensing it may have to do with identifying the invariants in the problem or in the design, but I'm not sure.

For example, without an OOP model/simplification of the real world, it may not be immediately obvious what a Dog or a Cat class is (what are its states? what are its methods?). Otoh, from a FP POV, a Eat() function simply allows an Animal to turn Food into Poop and Energy. It's harder to imagine Eat() being anything else (for me, at least).

I'm looking more for C++ answers, but this question could apply to any sub-module in any language that can handle multiple paradigms.

Design Question

Recently, I've been doing more and more FP in C++, mostly in the form of function templates and heavy overloading of a single name. I really like FP for some well-defined operations, but I've also noticed that as with OOP, one could easily fall into anti-patterns of spaghetti-code (eg circular dependencies, which is a bigger issue for state-based code) if one isn't careful.

My question is, when thinking about adding new functionality, how do you decide between using a FP-paradigm or a OOP-paradigm?

I'm sensing it may have to do with defining the invariants in the problem, but I'm not sure.

I'm looking more for C++ answers, but this question could apply to any sub-module in any language that can handle multiple paradigms.

Design Question

Recently, I've been doing more and more FP in C++, mostly in the form of function templates and heavy overloading of a single name. I really like FP for some well-defined operations, but I've also noticed that as with OOP, one could easily fall into anti-patterns of spaghetti-code if one isn't careful (eg circular dependencies, which is a bigger issue for state-based code).

My question is, when thinking about adding new functionality, how do you decide between using a FP-paradigm or a OOP-paradigm?

I'm sensing it may have to do with identifying the invariants in the problem or in the design, but I'm not sure.

For example, without an OOP model/simplification of the real world, it may not be immediately obvious what a Dog or a Cat class is (what are its states? what are its methods?). Otoh, from a FP POV, a Eat() function simply allows an Animal to turn Food into Poop and Energy. It's harder to imagine Eat() being anything else (for me, at least).

I'm looking more for C++ answers, but this question could apply to any sub-module in any language that can handle multiple paradigms.