protomolecule

62 ms·

691.
by protomolecule 7y ago
"I'm not arguing that open recursion is part of OOP definition" Should be: is not a part
692.
by protomolecule 7y ago
I think there is a difference between having a way to bypass encapsulation and deliberately not having encapsulation at all. Otherwise I agree with you.
693.
by protomolecule 7y ago
Yes, that sentence was wrong and if you say that ability to override any method is the essence of the true OOP I would agree that the true OOP is a disaster.
694.
by protomolecule 7y ago
But what I described IS an abstract data type and the concept of abstract data types appeared in CLU which is an OO language. What's more, encapsulation (data-hiding) don't seem to be an integral part of FP and Haskell's modu
695.
by protomolecule 7y ago
`factorial` definition hasn't changed, what changed is its implicit parameter. The word 'inherit' tells you that all methods of the `computer` class are potentially affected, including `factorial` unless you can see in `pred`
696.
by protomolecule 7y ago
"Yeah, no, you are redefining factorial in terms of different `pred` functions, and I'm simply defining `prev` without redefining factorial." No, you are not simply defining `prev`, you are creating a new class using `compute
697.
by protomolecule 7y ago
"No, open recursion is the only thing that makes OOP a distinct paradigm. Without `self` you don't have OOP." I'm not arguing that open recursion is part of OOP definition, I just disagree that C++ and C# aren't OOP
698.
by protomolecule 7y ago
I haven't thought of Java. As the sibling comment says, it's the case for C++ and C#. In case of Java I agree with ernst_klim's critique, to me it's a poor language design choice. Dynamic languages are a mess anyway, but
699.
by protomolecule 7y ago
"Non virtual methods has nothing to do with OOP, they are a mere sugar for function calling." By this logic virtual functions are mere sugar for tables of functions and as such have nothing to do with anything besides functions an
700.
by protomolecule 7y ago
"In your example you are explicitly breaking factorial. In my example I'm just defining `pred`, and it's unexpectedly and implicitly breaking factorial." In all mainstream languages with OOP features methods by default a
701.
by protomolecule 7y ago
A simple example on how higher order functions are harmful. Consider we have a function which computes the factorial: let rec fact(x, prev) = if x <= 1 then 1 else x * fact(prev(x), prev);; let factorial(x) = fact(x, fun x -> x-