23 ms·

Reminds me of one of my favorite all time John Carmack tweets: "Sometimes, the elegant implementation is just a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a fram

Reminds me of one of my favorite all time John Carmack tweets: "Sometimes, the elegant implementation is just a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/53512300451201024 https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/5351230045120102...

marshray 15y ago
Exactly. The function is perhaps the most powerful and useful abstraction in all of computer science. I always found it absurd that some languages force you to write "Math.cos(...)".
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >I always found it absurd that some languages force you to write "Math.cos(...)". I disagree. Namespaces are a good thing. The "Foo dot bar" syntax is just commonly associated with class member access. I think it's a lot better to have to explicitly refer to where a function comes from (as long as it doesn't devolve into retarded Java-style verbosity, ie "Foo.bar.baz.spam.eggs..."). Though it's nice to have a way to omit the namespace, ie C++'s "using namespace Foo" or Python's "from Foo import bar". I just think that the sane default is to use explicit namespaces.
  - marshray 15y ago
    I don't think everyone should always use explicit namespaces everywhere. But in this case "Math" isn't even a namespace! It's a class of which cos() is a static member. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html#cos%28double%29 http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html...
    - pauldino 15y ago
      Thankfully Java 5 added 'import static' which lets you pretend classes are namespaces. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/static-import.html http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/stat...
      - marshray 15y ago
        Thanks for that info. Anyone know if C# has something similar? From the linked docs: So when should you use static import? Very sparingly! To me, it sort of confirms the point that these inelegant features are necessary because the language doesn't support fundamental primitives like plain functions and named constants without a superfluous object definition.
        pauldino 15y ago
        The CLI itself actually supports unadorned functions, but C# doesn't provide a way of writing them, or using directly them without resorting to reflection. I'm pretty sure C++/CLI lets you use and write standalone functions in managed code, and come to think of it I imagine F# would too. Also it's not an exact equivalent, but C# extension methods can often be used instead of static methods.
        atesti 15y ago
        You can mark a class as static, then it will only allow static functions or members: static class Math { static int Pow(int a,int b) {...} }
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      In a recent article on Hacker News regarding the evils of classes, one of the valid uses of classes were for makeshift namespaces. I would have to agree with this. The model of Java requires all functions to be inside classes. If you have a class full of statics, it functionally becomes a unique namespace. It's semantics, but at that point, they're interchangeable.
      - qu4z-2 15y ago
        Except that you can't import a class using "using" or "import", so you have to write Math.cos() everywhere. EDIT: I see below that Java has added "import static", but at that point you're in the situation where you have two things that are almost the same but not quite, which is not a particularly clean design in my opinion.
    - SeanLuke 15y ago
      You are conflating namespaces (a general and abstract concept) with Java packages. While it's true that static methods can have private static (essentially global) data, in in the Java standard libraries static methods largely exist as a mechanism to keep function names from polluting a common global namespace. And Math is a particularly special case of this. Ponder this: have you ever had to say import java.lang.Math ?

marshray 15y ago

Exactly. The function is perhaps the most powerful and useful abstraction in all of computer science. I always found it absurd that some languages force you to write "Math.cos(...)".

slowpoke 15y ago
>I always found it absurd that some languages force you to write "Math.cos(...)". I disagree. Namespaces are a good thing. The "Foo dot bar" syntax is just commonly associated with class member access. I think it's a lot better to have to explicitly refer to where a function comes from (as long as it doesn't devolve into retarded Java-style verbosity, ie "Foo.bar.baz.spam.eggs..."). Though it's nice to have a way to omit the namespace, ie C++'s "using namespace Foo" or Python's "from Foo import bar". I just think that the sane default is to use explicit namespaces.
- marshray 15y ago
  I don't think everyone should always use explicit namespaces everywhere. But in this case "Math" isn't even a namespace! It's a class of which cos() is a static member. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html#cos%28double%29 http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html...
  - pauldino 15y ago
    Thankfully Java 5 added 'import static' which lets you pretend classes are namespaces. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/static-import.html http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/stat...
    - marshray 15y ago
      Thanks for that info. Anyone know if C# has something similar? From the linked docs: So when should you use static import? Very sparingly! To me, it sort of confirms the point that these inelegant features are necessary because the language doesn't support fundamental primitives like plain functions and named constants without a superfluous object definition.
      - pauldino 15y ago
        The CLI itself actually supports unadorned functions, but C# doesn't provide a way of writing them, or using directly them without resorting to reflection. I'm pretty sure C++/CLI lets you use and write standalone functions in managed code, and come to think of it I imagine F# would too. Also it's not an exact equivalent, but C# extension methods can often be used instead of static methods.
      - atesti 15y ago
        You can mark a class as static, then it will only allow static functions or members: static class Math { static int Pow(int a,int b) {...} }
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    In a recent article on Hacker News regarding the evils of classes, one of the valid uses of classes were for makeshift namespaces. I would have to agree with this. The model of Java requires all functions to be inside classes. If you have a class full of statics, it functionally becomes a unique namespace. It's semantics, but at that point, they're interchangeable.
    - qu4z-2 15y ago
      Except that you can't import a class using "using" or "import", so you have to write Math.cos() everywhere. EDIT: I see below that Java has added "import static", but at that point you're in the situation where you have two things that are almost the same but not quite, which is not a particularly clean design in my opinion.
  - SeanLuke 15y ago
    You are conflating namespaces (a general and abstract concept) with Java packages. While it's true that static methods can have private static (essentially global) data, in in the Java standard libraries static methods largely exist as a mechanism to keep function names from polluting a common global namespace. And Math is a particularly special case of this. Ponder this: have you ever had to say import java.lang.Math ?