3 ms·
But when done cleanly, I'd argue that an object is more powerful than the sum of its parts. I think I agree with your assessment of C++. What languages do you
by nkurz 10y ago
But when done cleanly, I'd argue that an object is more powerful than the sum of its parts.
I think I agree with your assessment of C++. What languages do you feel deal cleanly with objects so they exceed the sum of the parts?
- lacampbell 10y agoHonestly pretty much all of them if C++ is your reference point. Java, C#, Scala, Ruby, Ocaml...
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoI've seen objects recreated in Scheme and Clojure. They are really much more common than most FP people appreciate, just look for noun-ish naming conventions in your abstractions.
- lacampbell 10y agoIt's controversial for some people. OO is that horrible verbose enterprise code with all the mutable state. And if you suggest that certain features or patterns approximate OO they get very defensive. There are certain famous FP language implementers that should probably read what Guy Steele wrote in the topic, because listening to their talks I strongly get the impression they haven't.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoOne could also just use a synonym of object, like "entity." "Hey...we aren't using objects here, we are using entities!" (Facepalm) I saw Guy's growing a language talk before, but I don't think he's ever chimed in on this debate before. Most people at his level simply except the world without much bias, and are comfortable using object and functional styles when necessary.