2 ms·

> In what language do you find it easiest to make classes only when you feel like it? Any language that isn't a fairly close C descendant. Haskell, Lisp, Pytho

by pnathan 15y ago

> In what language do you find it easiest to make classes only when you feel like it? Any language that isn't a fairly close C descendant. Haskell, Lisp, Python, Perl are languages I've done some work in with minimal OOness. When I used Java a few years ago, it required classes. C++ winds up being very class-ish. C of course is limited. I have come to be very pleased with not using classes unless the solution really demands it. It's sort of a "grow the solution" idea, instead of "waterfall the solution".

slowpoke 15y ago
>Any language that isn't a fairly close C descendant. Haskell, Lisp, Python, Perl are languages I've done some work in with minimal OOness. At least in Python - which is the only one of those four I can speak for - all you are doing is basically OO (in fact, everything in Python is an object). The beautiful thing about Python is how it's abstracting a lot of this away by providing functions which implicitly call "magic methods" which are either generated by the interpreter or can be defined by the programmer (ie, __iter__(), __next__(), __init__()), and by virtue of Duck Typing, which means an object defines itself by what it can do, not its identity or origin. You'd never even notice a lot of this unless you dip into the internals of Python a bit. And ultimately, I don't think this is actually possible without using OO or some close equivalent. So in the end, a lot of the "solutions" people have proposed in this thread ultimately depend on the very thing they want to "solve": Object Orientation.