3 ms·
Ok. But noticed what I said. *Things* that are easy in one OOP should be similarily easy to express in other OOP language. Counter example: Html5 DOM.
by Ygg2 4y ago
Ok. But noticed what I said. *Things* that are easy in one OOP should be similarily easy to express in other OOP language.
Counter example: Html5 DOM.
- pjmlp 4y agoCounter example of what? A graph representation of nodes based on JavaScript object model? Fine, https://rustwasm.github.io/docs/wasm-bindgen/examples/dom.html https://rustwasm.github.io/docs/wasm-bindgen/examples/dom.ht...
- Ygg2 4y agoYeah but if you dig deeper you'll notice it is riddled with unsafe, casts and Deref misuse. It's a brittle simulation of Inheritance. To transform a saying "Just because you can write Ada in C, doesn't make C Ada".
- Ygg2 4y agoPost Scriptum: one way to prove this is that we could use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43XaZEn2aLc as a base. How to prove. Assume that we add struct inheritance to Rust (it looks similar to JS) - call it RustInh. Does adding inheritance to Rust increase expressive power? If yes, then right now Rust can't express OOP concept as inheritance. I.e. is there a C[RustInh] = C[Rust]. And way to prove it is to look at Deref anti-patterns https://github.com/rust-unofficial/patterns/blob/main/anti_patterns/deref.md https://github.com/rust-unofficial/patterns/blob/main/anti_p... I'm still not sure that fully captures my intuition of easy to write.