Comparative analysis of functional and object-oriented programming | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore
Subscribe
ADVANCED SEARCH
Conferences >2016 39th International Conve...

Comparative analysis of functional and object-oriented programming

PDF
Dino Alic; Samir Omanovic; Vaidas Giedrimas
All Authors

Abstract:

The choice of the first programming language and the corresponding programming paradigm is an important part of the software development process. Knowing the advantages a...Show More

Metadata

Abstract:

The choice of the first programming language and the corresponding programming paradigm is an important part of the software development process. Knowing the advantages and constraints of individual programming paradigms is important as it can be crucial for successful software implementation. In this paper we conduct an empirical comparison of functional and object-oriented programming languages using analog examples in C#, F#, Haskell, and Java. Three algorithms were implemented: algorithm for solving N queens problem, algorithm for generating n-th left-truncatable prime and merge sort algorithm in C#, F#, Haskell and Java programming languages. An overview of programming languages efficiency is given by measuring two basic parameters: number of lines of code and program execution speed. Also, system resource usage is monitored during execution. Limited experiments showed that the programming language Java is faster than the other three languages whose performances were measured. Java was surprisingly fast on these problems that are more suitable for functional programming languages. Haskell was less memory intensive (up to two times less than Java) with similar execution times, while .NET languages were slower up to four times in comparison to Java. Object-oriented languages C# and Java had significantly more lines of code for all three algorithms when compared to functional programming language Haskell and the hybrid one F#.
Published in: 2016 39th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO)
Date of Conference: 30 May 2016 - 03 June 2016
Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 28 July 2016
ISBN Information:
DOI: 10.1109/MIPRO.2016.7522224
Conference Location: Opatija, Croatia
References is not available for this document.
Contents

I. Introduction

As with the many things in programming languages history, there is an always present debate about which programming paradigm is better and when a specific paradigm should be used [1]–[2]. Even the classification of paradigms itself is often cause for a debate. However, programming paradigms are often classified in six fundamental paradigms: imperative, declarative, object-oriented, functional, symbolic, and logic programming paradigms. Declarative and symbolic paradigms are sometimes left out leaving only four fundamental paradigms [3].

Select All
1.
B. Meyer, “SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE: OBJECT-ORIENTED VS FUNCTIONAL,” Chapter 13 of Beautiful Architecture, edited by D. Spinellis and G. Cousios, O'Reilly, 2009, pp. 315–348.
Google Scholar
2.
S. Nanz and C. A. Furia, “A Comparative Study of Programming Languages in Rosetta Code,” in Proceedings of the 37th InternationalConference on Software Engineering - Volume 1, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015, pp. 778–788.
CrossRef Google Scholar
3.
K. Normark, “Functional Programming in Scheme.” [Online]. Available: http://people.cs.aau.dkl=normark/prog'i-03/html/notes/theme-index.html. [Accessed: 02–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
4.
J. O. Coplien, “Multi-Paradigm Design,” Ph.D. dissertation, Informatics Dept., Vrije Univ., Brussel, Belgium, 2000.
Google Scholar
5.
D. Donko and S. Omanovic, Objektno orijentirana analiza i dizajn primjenom UML notacije, Elektrotehnicki fakultet, Sarajevo, 2009.
Google Scholar
6.
Microsoft, “NET Framework Versions and Dependencies.” [Online]. Available: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb822049(v=vs.110).aspx. [Accessed: 02–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
7.
Oracle, “Information about Java 8.” [Online]. Available: https:/Ijava.com/en/download/faq/java8.xml. [Accessed: 02–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
8.
A. Scott, “Functional Programming vs. Object-Oriented Programming.” [Online]. Available: http://functionspace.com/topicI1467/Functional-Programming-vs-Object-Oriented-Programming. [Accessed: 02–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
9.
D. Wampler and A. Payne, Programming Scala: Scalability = Functional Programming + Objects. O'Reilly Media, 2014.
Google Scholar
10.
D. A. Turner, “Some History of Functional Programming Languages ” - An invited lecture given at TFP 12, St Andrews University, 12 June 2012.
Google Scholar
11.
T. Kuhne, A Functional Pattern System for Object-Oriented Design, Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg, Germany, 1999.
Google Scholar
12.
Basili V.R. ; Selby R.W., “Comparing the Effectiveness of Software Testing Strategies,” in Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. SE-13, no. 12, pp. 1278–1296, Dec. 1987
View Article
Google Scholar
13.
Haskell, “Haskell Language.” [Online]. Available: https://www.haskell.org/. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ]. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
14.
Microsoft “Visual C# Resources.” [Online]. Available: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/hh341490.aspx. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
15.
Oracle, “Java 8 Central.” [Online]. Available: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/java8–2100321.html. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
16.
Microsoft “Visual F#.” [Online]. Available: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233154.aspx. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
17.
G. Hutton, Programming in Haskell, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
CrossRef Google Scholar
18.
M. Leucker T. Noll P. Stevens, and M. Weber, “M.: Functional programming languages for verification tools: Experiences with ML and Haskell,” in In: Proceedings of the Scottish Functional Programming Workshop, 2001.
Google Scholar
19.
B. O'Sullivan J. Goerzen D.B. Stewart, Real World Haskell, O'Reilly Media, 2008.
Google Scholar
20.
T. Liu, F# for C# Developers, Microsoft Press, 2013.
Google Scholar
21.
Oracle, “Lambda Expressions (The Java™ Tutorials> Learning the Java Language> Classes and Objects).” [Online]. Available: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/lambdaexpressions.html. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
22.
TIOBE, “TIOBE Software: Tiobe Index.” [Online]. Available: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
23.
Microsoft, “Lambda Expressions (C# Programming Guide).” [Online]. Available: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397687.aspx. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ]. [Accessed: 03–Feb–2016 ].
Google Scholar
24.
O. Angell and H. J. Godwin, “On Truncatable Primes,” in Mathematics of computation, AMS, vol. 31, No 177, pp. 265–267, Jan 1977
CrossRef Google Scholar

Contact IEEE to Subscribe
More Like This
A Teaching Path for Java Object Oriented Programming

2009 International Forum on Information Technology and Applications

Published: 2009

On Teaching Java and Object Oriented Programming by Using Children Board Games

2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)

Published: 2019

Show More

References

References is not available for this document.

IEEE Account

Purchase Details

Profile Information

Need Help?

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.
© Copyright 2025 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.