3 ms·
I feel that Golang in many ways is on that path, the way it does not allow no-subclassing really got me thinking. > I don't think it would, at the end of the d
by cies 12y ago
I feel that Golang in many ways is on that path, the way it does not allow no-subclassing really got me thinking.
> I don't think it would, at the end of the day, look much at all like OO the way that OO appears today
Won't it be more like a Actor-oriented thing then?
- jerf 12y ago"I feel that Golang in many ways is on that path, the way it does not allow no-subclassing really got me thinking." I'm pretty decent in Haskell and fluent in Go at this point, and it really depends on what you mean by that. Is Go a certain brand of very refined OO? Yes. I've even found certain ideas from PF are surprisingly adaptable [1], the "surprise" being that it's not the usual "Look, Ma, I can map/filter/reduce!" that an OO language borrows from the FP world, which Go is actually really hostile to. (Go does have closures and they are important, but the type system precludes a lot of the "good stuff".) However, is Go headed in the direction of Haskell? No. It's definitely not. Trying to turn it into Haskell would be nothing but pain. Mutability is pretty fundamental in Go, and while there's a culture of isolating it to goroutines, the language itself does little to help with that. [1]: http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2923 http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2923
- cies 12y ago> it really depends on what you mean by that. Is Go a certain brand of very refined OO? Yes. Indeed that's what I meant.
- tel 12y agoI'm not certain. I think the interesting aspects would be in considering what's missing from open corecursion. I don't think the actor model is much better foundationally---it's a destination, not a beginning or a path.