4 ms·

A tuple is an object; it's a perfectly proper way to return multiple values from a function, out parameters are not. In fact I'm unsure what your comment has to

A tuple is an object; it's a perfectly proper way to return multiple values from a function, out parameters are not. In fact I'm unsure what your comment has to do at all with anything I said, I'm discussing out parameters and why I don't like them and why it's better to return and object and then you say no return a tuple, which is an object, an instance of the class Tuple. You seem to be trying to disagree with my statement but you've actually supported my point.

barrkel 10y ago
Only an object-oriented programmer will say that a tuple is an object. A relational programmer or someone using a logic programming language wouldn't say the same thing. A tuple doesn't have behaviour, inheritance, encapsulation, or data hiding. Tuples are language-agnostic. An OO language has little choice but to represent tuples as objects, but to say that tuples are objects is no more true than saying that a user's account is an object, a TCP connection is an object, or a window on screen is an object - it mistakes representation for referent, it confuses the map with the territory.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  A tuple is an instance of the class Tuple, an object by definition. It doesn't matter what a relational or logic programmer would prefer to call it, instances of classes are objects. I can add any behavior I like to those instances via extensions. Your tuple might not have any behavior, you might think of it as pure data, but that's a limitation of your view of things, not the reality. The language provides the ability to extend any class, your reality tunnel isn't the same as others. > ut to say that tuples are objects is no more true than saying that a user's account is an object, a TCP connection is an object, or a window on screen is an object - it mistakes representation for referent, it confuses the map with the territory. No, it makes the map useful to navigate the territory by accepting the abstraction of objects as a useful thing; there's a reason to say "everything is an object", it's a powerful ability. I'm a Smalltalk'er, everything literally is an object with methods even if/while/for/foreach statements are modeled with objects. That you find it confusing or meaningless doesn't matter to me, it's my reality tunnel and it works well.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    > That you find it confusing or meaningless doesn't matter to me, it's my reality tunnel and it works well. This conversation, such that it is, is over: simultaneously insulting your co-conversant while explicitly and resolutely staying within your own perspective means there will be no communication, by your will. Good luck with that.

barrkel 10y ago

Only an object-oriented programmer will say that a tuple is an object. A relational programmer or someone using a logic programming language wouldn't say the same thing. A tuple doesn't have behaviour, inheritance, encapsulation, or data hiding. Tuples are language-agnostic. An OO language has little choice but to represent tuples as objects, but to say that tuples are objects is no more true than saying that a user's account is an object, a TCP connection is an object, or a window on screen is an object - it mistakes representation for referent, it confuses the map with the territory.

gnaritas 10y ago
A tuple is an instance of the class Tuple, an object by definition. It doesn't matter what a relational or logic programmer would prefer to call it, instances of classes are objects. I can add any behavior I like to those instances via extensions. Your tuple might not have any behavior, you might think of it as pure data, but that's a limitation of your view of things, not the reality. The language provides the ability to extend any class, your reality tunnel isn't the same as others. > ut to say that tuples are objects is no more true than saying that a user's account is an object, a TCP connection is an object, or a window on screen is an object - it mistakes representation for referent, it confuses the map with the territory. No, it makes the map useful to navigate the territory by accepting the abstraction of objects as a useful thing; there's a reason to say "everything is an object", it's a powerful ability. I'm a Smalltalk'er, everything literally is an object with methods even if/while/for/foreach statements are modeled with objects. That you find it confusing or meaningless doesn't matter to me, it's my reality tunnel and it works well.
- barrkel 10y ago
  > That you find it confusing or meaningless doesn't matter to me, it's my reality tunnel and it works well. This conversation, such that it is, is over: simultaneously insulting your co-conversant while explicitly and resolutely staying within your own perspective means there will be no communication, by your will. Good luck with that.