3 ms·
I don't agree with that. Naming things and communicating well is something you have to do in every programming paradigm and is not specific to OOP. IMO, if you
by ufo 12y ago
I don't agree with that. Naming things and communicating well is something you have to do in every programming paradigm and is not specific to OOP.
IMO, if you want to see what OOP is really about you should focus on its unique features: inheritance, subtype polymorphism, etc.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoYou mean, objects aren't really about objects, since every programming paradigm has them? Well yah, that is kind of the point: it is hard to not think in terms of them, that is what 100k years of evolved linguistic capabilities have given us. If you want to focus on unique features, then do that instead; Stepanov's argument was focused on thinking, not checkmarks.
- jowiar 12y agoTo me, OOP is, first and foremost, about messages. Everything else is negotiable.
- tracker1 12y agoMessages, across boundaries is more FP than OO though... it actually adds complexity to do this in an OO paradigm.
- Gurkenmaster 12y agoWhat do you mean with complexity?
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoMessages, communication, aren't they same thing, no? I don't agree with Alan Kay on this point; or perhaps I don't understand it correctly (it is just one sentence, he never really elaborates on it anywhere as far as I can find, the best I have found is [1]). [1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKayOnMessaging http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKayOnMessaging