3 ms·
do you mean that in the way of "an object is a poor person's closure"? Objects are a poor man's closures. And closures are a poor man's objects. Modern langu
by btilly 7y ago
do you mean that in the way of "an object is a poor person's closure"?
Objects are a poor man's closures. And closures are a poor man's objects.
Modern languages have both. And they serve different purposes.
- uryga 7y agoi intended to put "(and vice versa)" in a footnote, but forgot about it! you can see a relic of that in the last paragraph. though i must say, i'm pretty happy in languages that have closures but don't have objects, as long as there's a nice way to do ad-hoc polymorphism (like traits/typeclasses)