4 ms·
Yes, that's all true, but after even two stages of this you're in the kingdom of the nouns. Note the argument is not structural, but philosophical. Yes, the t
by dnautics 6y ago
Yes, that's all true, but after even two stages of this you're in the kingdom of the nouns.
Note the argument is not structural, but philosophical. Yes, the two constructs are logically isomorphic, but to get composability with objects you must start twisting your brain in uncomfortable ways. I would concede there might be a minority of folks whose brain truly works like this. For the rest, it must be stockholm syndrome.
- Geminidog 6y agoIt's structural. class X: constructor(y=3,z=2) y; z; b = [......] F(x) = y + x F cannot be reused outside of the context of X and z y and b. This is not a philosophical issue but concrete. G(x, y) = y + x Here G has the same exact logic as F but can be reused and is more modular. No philosophy of fuzzy stuff here I am talking about a concrete problem. Philosophical arguments lead to unresolved controversies. I am not going in that direction. I am talking about a concrete issue that can be resolved.
- dnautics 6y agoI think parents posters idea about reuse is that if you need to reuse it, you make it into an abstraction and hoist (copy/paste) to a superclass and make where you took it from a child class. On the one hand, it does make the reuse explicit ("explicit is better than implicit"). Or you broaden the member elements to be able to take a broader interface. On the other hand, this is how you wind up with enterprise java.