4 ms·

Probably in large part because their book came out before Java was even around. :-D

joeberon 5y ago
Exactly the point they were making. All these problems were already around at the time. In fact people didn't even see them as problems. Read gang of four, and they don't really mention working around the limitations of the language. It is as if they are not really aware how many of their problems are arising due to the language's design, and think their patterns are just a generically good to do it. People don't use a majority of them now because there is just no need for them anymore in modern languages.
- hinoki 5y ago
  So the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true for programming languages?
- nine_k 5y ago
  Curiously, Smalltalk also lacks the idea of a function. Everything is an object; instead of a function, you have a code block which is an object. But, unlike Java, Smalltalk is (utterly) dynamic, and you don't have to declare a class for your code block. In Java, you had to dance that dance, until lambdas were introduced to let the compiler do that for you.
  - igouy 5y ago
    "III. Anonymous Function = Block?" slides 17 & 18 "Smalltalk blocks and closures origin and evolution" Juan Escalada https://smalltalks2017.fast.org.ar/talks https://smalltalks2017.fast.org.ar/talks
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Until lambdas came to be, the workaround was to use anonymous classes, very few people would do a separate class. And no lambdas are not implemented that way, rather they take advantage of invokedynamic.
  - igouy 5y ago
    > > > Everything is an object… "Every object in Smalltalk, even a lowly integer, has a set of messages, a protocol, that defines the explicit communication to which that object can respond. Internally, objects may have local storage and access to other shared information which comprise the implicit context of all communication." p290 Byte Magazine 1981 http://worrydream.com/refs/Ingalls%20-%20Design%20Principles%20Behind%20Smalltalk.pdf http://worrydream.com/refs/Ingalls%20-%20Design%20Principles... > > > … instead of a function… Instead of a function, a message. Let's take that literally — perform: aSymbol with: anObject Answer the result of sending a binary message to the receiver with selector aSymbol and argument anObject. Report an error if the number of arguments expected by the selector is not one. (For more of those methods, see p425 https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutorial/SmalltalkVTutorial.pdf https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutori... ) Last-time I remember using those #perform methods, it was for testing — walking the code sending arbitrary messages and and arguments.

Exactly the point they were making. All these problems were already around at the time. In fact people didn't even see them as problems. Read gang of four, and they don't really mention working around the limitations of the language. It is as if they are not really aware how many of their problems are arising due to the language's design, and think their patterns are just a generically good to do it. People don't use a majority of them now because there is just no need for them anymore in modern languages.

hinoki 5y ago
So the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true for programming languages?
nine_k 5y ago
Curiously, Smalltalk also lacks the idea of a function. Everything is an object; instead of a function, you have a code block which is an object. But, unlike Java, Smalltalk is (utterly) dynamic, and you don't have to declare a class for your code block. In Java, you had to dance that dance, until lambdas were introduced to let the compiler do that for you.
- igouy 5y ago
  "III. Anonymous Function = Block?" slides 17 & 18 "Smalltalk blocks and closures origin and evolution" Juan Escalada https://smalltalks2017.fast.org.ar/talks https://smalltalks2017.fast.org.ar/talks
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Until lambdas came to be, the workaround was to use anonymous classes, very few people would do a separate class. And no lambdas are not implemented that way, rather they take advantage of invokedynamic.
- igouy 5y ago
  > > > Everything is an object… "Every object in Smalltalk, even a lowly integer, has a set of messages, a protocol, that defines the explicit communication to which that object can respond. Internally, objects may have local storage and access to other shared information which comprise the implicit context of all communication." p290 Byte Magazine 1981 http://worrydream.com/refs/Ingalls%20-%20Design%20Principles%20Behind%20Smalltalk.pdf http://worrydream.com/refs/Ingalls%20-%20Design%20Principles... > > > … instead of a function… Instead of a function, a message. Let's take that literally — perform: aSymbol with: anObject Answer the result of sending a binary message to the receiver with selector aSymbol and argument anObject. Report an error if the number of arguments expected by the selector is not one. (For more of those methods, see p425 https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutorial/SmalltalkVTutorial.pdf https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutori... ) Last-time I remember using those #perform methods, it was for testing — walking the code sending arbitrary messages and and arguments.