Most bugs I make are about state being out of sync - in fact every bug that is not because I misunderstood a problem is because state is out of sync.
In OOP programs, every object usually has it's own state, and it is updated all the time. If I can describe the world as one big hash-map, and my whole program can be while(true){writeToScreen(render(appState))}, then I'm very happy.
Haskell, which you seem to dislike, has a lot of syntax and some new concepts you need to pick up to get going. I recommend you to try out something that is extremely simple, like Clojure.
In Clojure there are not many things you need to learn before being dangerous. The data structures are lists '(), vectors [], hash-maps {} and sets #{}. There are functions (fn [] ) and macros, but you don't need them.
When coding functionally you can be sure you don't fuck something up by changing some state somewhere. And you don't need to mock data. And you don't need to do ORM. It's freaking great.
But I don't need Haskell or Clojure or anything like that to solve my problems. Ruby works just fine for me. I have lists, vectors, hash-maps and sets in Ruby. I can data pipeline simply and idiomatically. I don't work with math-heavy domains, so I don't need heavy math (type system) to write my programs.
When I have bugs in my code it's because I misunderstood the problem domain. State is missing somewhere, state that was unaccounted for and so is running loose in the code. The process of fixing the bug also illuminates what I was missing about the domain. Working on a program is the process of tightening the code around the domain.
> If I can describe the world as one big hash-map, and my whole program can be while(true){writeToScreen(render(appState))}, then I'm very happy.
I want my code to be flexible, and I only want to represent concepts once. I want to be able to interact with it on the command line, on the web, as an API. To do this I need to manage all the different ways other systems can get at the domain logic because otherwise I'm reimplementing parts of the system inside other systems. My program needs to be self-contained.
The best way I've seen to write and manage this kind of flexible code is with dynamic typing and OOP. Dynamic typing isn't a necessity, but it is a big help. OOP just makes everything sane.
"I don't work with math-heavy domains, so I don't need heavy math (type system) to write my programs."
I don't think you know what you're missing.
Type systems can be used to enforce pretty arbitrary things. Representation of data can be handled fairly well automatically, so types describing representation are only marginally useful (mostly where we care about interchange or care a lot about performance). However, if you make your types domain relevant, they can help you with domain relevant things. This can be simple - "I don't want to pass a bid price where I expected an ask price" - or it can be surprisingly sophisticated; I was able to ensure that certain actions were only taken on the correct threads, checked at compile time, in C - this helped me tremendously in refactoring when I discovered some piece of logic needed to live somewhere else. I really can't imagine doing that work without type checks, and it wasn't the slightest big "math heavy".
In OOP programs, every object usually has it's own state, and it is updated all the time. If I can describe the world as one big hash-map, and my whole program can be while(true){writeToScreen(render(appState))}, then I'm very happy.
Haskell, which you seem to dislike, has a lot of syntax and some new concepts you need to pick up to get going. I recommend you to try out something that is extremely simple, like Clojure.
In Clojure there are not many things you need to learn before being dangerous. The data structures are lists '(), vectors [], hash-maps {} and sets #{}. There are functions (fn [] ) and macros, but you don't need them.
When coding functionally you can be sure you don't fuck something up by changing some state somewhere. And you don't need to mock data. And you don't need to do ORM. It's freaking great.