4 ms·
If people get angry while reading this article, there must be some truth in what he says. Dissing OO is still swearing in the church. I programmed for a long t
by sunkencity 18y ago
If people get angry while reading this article, there must be some truth in what he says. Dissing OO is still swearing in the church.
I programmed for a long time not knowing OO and it was fine, there are other ways of encapsulation/isolation of code that works just as well. I don't really see that there's a big difference, and there's a certain element of religion about OO vs Functional. Both have their own merits in different types of applications. Still it's nice with someone who stands up for the functional approach.
- barrkel 18y agoNo anger here; just unmoved.
- jff 18y agoOO and Functional are not the only two styles of programming out there. There's actually Functional and Imperative (and maybe others?), with OO being an additional concept that gets tacked onto both functional and imperative languages.
- ricky_clarkson 18y agoOO exists on top of the imperative paradigm, never the functional one. If you disagree, please define OO.
- parenthesis 18y agoCommon Lisp is a multi-paradigm language, but its OO features can be used in a functional style.
- hassy 18y ago1. OO has no precise and universally accepted definition. http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html 2. Parameterized modules in Erlang can be seen as a form of lightweight functional OOP. http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/05/18/late-binding-with-erlang http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/05/18/late-binding-with-erla... http://www.erlang.se/workshop/2003/paper/p29-carlsson.pdf http://www.erlang.se/workshop/2003/paper/p29-carlsson.pdf
- jff 18y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System "Sweeping generalizations are always bad" :)
- likpok 18y agoFrom what I understand, CL is not a functional language. It can be used as such, but is not necessarily one.