3 ms·

My C++ brain must be getting too old -- head is swimming :( From all the talk, these must be very useful, but I don't understand why? Why not just use an obje

by DNeb 15y ago

My C++ brain must be getting too old -- head is swimming :( From all the talk, these must be very useful, but I don't understand why? Why not just use an object?

eropple 15y ago
Because there's no need to burden ourselves (and, perhaps more importantly, the people who'll have to maintain the code after us) with a whack of boilerplate for a fairly simple function. (Also, you can use enclosed variables inside of map/fold constructs, which would be hard to express via objects.)
rufus_t 15y ago
Many a brain have pondered the same question since the beginning of time. For instance, you can meditate over the following koan: ----- The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures." Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress. On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened. ----- Anton van Straaten in http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m...

3 ms·

My C++ brain must be getting too old -- head is swimming :( From all the talk, these must be very useful, but I don't understand why? Why not just use an obje

by DNeb 15y ago

My C++ brain must be getting too old -- head is swimming :( From all the talk, these must be very useful, but I don't understand why? Why not just use an object?

eropple 15y ago
Because there's no need to burden ourselves (and, perhaps more importantly, the people who'll have to maintain the code after us) with a whack of boilerplate for a fairly simple function. (Also, you can use enclosed variables inside of map/fold constructs, which would be hard to express via objects.)
rufus_t 15y ago
Many a brain have pondered the same question since the beginning of time. For instance, you can meditate over the following koan: ----- The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures." Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress. On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened. ----- Anton van Straaten in http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m...