3 ms·
I think this starts to boil down to those who like OO and those whose don’t.
by dave_sid 5y ago
I think this starts to boil down to those who like OO and those whose don’t.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I think this starts to boil down to those who like OO and those whose don’t. I don't think so; there are OO languages where many of the GoF patterns can be implemented in libraries, or are trivial given language builtins.
- TimTheTinker 5y agoReal OO looks almost nothing like C++/Java. If you listen to one of the fathers of OO, like Alan Kay, talk about these languages, they'll say as much. C++-style indirection, I'd argue, is the invention of Bjarne Stroustrop. He's a very smart guy, but for C++ I think that's an unfortunate thing, because he didn't come to programming language design with a desire for elegance or simplicity. Smalltalk probably best embodies true OO principles, and it has a profound elegance and simplicity about it. (And yes, many GoF patterns are easy to use without even realizing one is using them -- first-class functions and message passing/late binding make sure of that.)