3 ms·
Is this guy talking about OO as described by smalltalk? Because he says that objects are bags of functions, not data, but in languages like java, c# and c++ ob
by crimsonalucard 10y ago
Is this guy talking about OO as described by smalltalk? Because he says that objects are bags of functions, not data, but in languages like java, c# and c++ objects are bags of both.
- noblethrasher 10y agoYes, he is probably talking about Smalltalk-style OO: https://medium.com/@richardeng/domo-arigato-mr-smalltalk-aa84e245beb9 https://medium.com/@richardeng/domo-arigato-mr-smalltalk-aa8... He's also the subject of this article: https://thenewstack.io/can-man-spark-renaissance-smalltalk-programming-language/ https://thenewstack.io/can-man-spark-renaissance-smalltalk-p..., which made the front page of HN a while back (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642947)
- horrido 10y agoIt's Uncle Bob who says objects are bags of functions. And this is not specific to Smalltalk nor dynamic languages. In Java, C#, and C++, objects are still just bags of functions.
- crimsonalucard 10y agoYeah but objects in those languages are also bags of data, which he explicitly said they are not.
- noblethrasher 10y agoJava and C# allow you to expose mutable fields, so objects are not strictly (or even ordinarily) just bags of functions.
- dragonwriter 10y agoThe C++ family of languages isn't really all that object-oriented; it's practically a different (static, class-oriented) paradigm that takes some inspiration from OOP (mostly from Smalltalk) but more from C's particular implementation of statically-typed procedural programming, as a result they are based around structs-enhanced-with-methods rather than proper objects.