3 ms·

Isn't your point 2 exactly what OP said? > I think it’s more interesting to think of the GoF-language as mimicking HOFs with the strategy pattern facsimile. Th

Isn't your point 2 exactly what OP said? > I think it’s more interesting to think of the GoF-language as mimicking HOFs with the strategy pattern facsimile. The strategy pattern reimplements HOFs as a code-level idiom.

LAC-Tech 4y ago
No more than HOFs are mimicking objects. It's two schools of thought - everything is functions & data, or everything is objects & methods.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Closures are implemented as objects under the skin, but that doesn't make them equivalent conceptually to me. I suppose it's down to syntax, after all if you ignore that you can have anything you like in assembler, but it won't feel very high level.
  - layer8 4y ago
    Closures are a poor man’s objects. Objects are a poor man’s closures.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      What's the "poor man's" stuff? Is there a better way I don't know of
      - Jtsummers 4y ago
        https://wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent https://wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent Comes from that koan.