7 ms·
>Unix philosophy has nothing to do with objects. I'm pretty sure it's an analogy. > It is about interfaces, streams and common intermediate data representatio
by rm999 14y ago
>Unix philosophy has nothing to do with objects.
I'm pretty sure it's an analogy.
> It is about interfaces, streams and common intermediate data representation
And this is what modularity is all about too.
> There is nothing from UNIX Philosophy there, just a modularity
Read the second paragraph: http://www.linfo.org/unix_philosophy.html http://www.linfo.org/unix_philosophy.html
- dschiptsov 14y agoa system that is composed of components (i.e., modules) that can be fitted together or arranged in a variety of ways. - So, it is not just about modules, it is mostly about the glue. In the same way, Lisp without an underlying list structure is just a prefix notation.
- pignata 14y agoI was using the analogy of the composability of Unix tools as a role model for how to think about the segregation of roles in an object-oriented system. I agree with you that the ways in which we can couple these objects together through their interfaces is the core of what we're designing. I think this philosophy as an analogy (especially as outlined by ESR) is applicable to a wide variety of things beyond even programming. Interesting to think about, anyway. Thanks for your thoughts.