4 ms·

What is your definition of "object system"? I'm afraid it seems open enough to include any system for polymorphism. (As an aside: I am the author of several Ru

What is your definition of "object system"? I'm afraid it seems open enough to include any system for polymorphism. (As an aside: I am the author of several Rust trait RFCs & I have read "Traits: Composable Units of Behaviour," though "How to make ad-hoc polymorphism less ad-hoc" is more relevant to Rust. Your smugness about this toward the other poster is not appreciated.)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lacampbell 10y ago
> Your smugness about this toward the other poster is not appreciated. I don't see him being smug at all. Is it smugness to suggest reading material to someone when they've shown ignorance of a topic? People do that to me here often from time to time and I don't interpret it as "smugness".
- iopq 10y ago
  I don't see any links to the relevant material, just namedropping
- tatterdemalion 10y ago
  It is when you make the recommendation in a tone which is didactic, patronizing, and superior. That's the definition of smug (I've also found your comments somewhat smug).
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    If you find it smug that's really your problem. It's a bit tiresome to see people talking about OO when they haven't educated themselves about OO at all. Which is probably why I don't like Rich Hickeys talks, incidentally.
pjmlp 10y ago
My definition is the same as the CS literature expressed in SIGPLAN, OOPSLA and ECOOP papers, written by people doing OOP language research since the mid-70s. No need to invent my own. As for the other poster, sorry if it appears like that. I did not offended anyone and provided information where to read more about trait systems. HN comments are not big enough to provide an history of OOP systems, their similarities and differences.
- tatterdemalion 10y ago
  I've been kind of aggressive in response to your comments, because I've found them condescending, but I think what we're actually revealing is that the way you're using "object-oriented" is ontologically discontinuous with the conception of languages derived from their formal semantics as I understand it. Features with the same formal semantics (Rust traits & Haskell type classes), expressed through distinct syntax, can correspond to different concepts in the ontology of languages which object-orientation exists within. I might be tempted to say that object-orientation has no explanatory value - "it just means polymorphism!" - but I think what's more accurate is to say that its explanatory value operates within a distinct discourse from the discourse I am familiar with.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lacampbell 10y ago

> Your smugness about this toward the other poster is not appreciated. I don't see him being smug at all. Is it smugness to suggest reading material to someone when they've shown ignorance of a topic? People do that to me here often from time to time and I don't interpret it as "smugness".

iopq 10y ago
I don't see any links to the relevant material, just namedropping
tatterdemalion 10y ago
It is when you make the recommendation in a tone which is didactic, patronizing, and superior. That's the definition of smug (I've also found your comments somewhat smug).
- lacampbell 10y ago
  If you find it smug that's really your problem. It's a bit tiresome to see people talking about OO when they haven't educated themselves about OO at all. Which is probably why I don't like Rich Hickeys talks, incidentally.

pjmlp 10y ago

My definition is the same as the CS literature expressed in SIGPLAN, OOPSLA and ECOOP papers, written by people doing OOP language research since the mid-70s. No need to invent my own. As for the other poster, sorry if it appears like that. I did not offended anyone and provided information where to read more about trait systems. HN comments are not big enough to provide an history of OOP systems, their similarities and differences.

tatterdemalion 10y ago
I've been kind of aggressive in response to your comments, because I've found them condescending, but I think what we're actually revealing is that the way you're using "object-oriented" is ontologically discontinuous with the conception of languages derived from their formal semantics as I understand it. Features with the same formal semantics (Rust traits & Haskell type classes), expressed through distinct syntax, can correspond to different concepts in the ontology of languages which object-orientation exists within. I might be tempted to say that object-orientation has no explanatory value - "it just means polymorphism!" - but I think what's more accurate is to say that its explanatory value operates within a distinct discourse from the discourse I am familiar with.