4 ms·
I'd change "binding functions to data" to "binding functions to types." The "data" is an object of a particular type. The binding to the actual data (object) ca
by cy_hauser 6y ago
I'd change "binding functions to data" to "binding functions to types." The "data" is an object of a particular type. The binding to the actual data (object) can take place at compile time or run time, depending on need. IMO that makes it a bit less weird and more just shifting the position of a parameter.
- overgard 6y agoWell, the reason I say binding to data instead of binding to type is that runtime polymorphism on instances is one of the selling points of OOP. I think its a little overrated but that is a good reason to use OO if you need that functionality. If you're only attaching functions to a type there isn't much difference between "thing.fn(x)" vs "fn(thing, x)"