[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Newbie question: Dylan and OOP?
oodl@my-deja.com wrote in message <94qpb3$ntn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <003101c08732$7bfd8260$8a00000a@darwin.net>,
> "Doug Ball" <doug@postsmart.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am a Dylan new comer and have not yet written any large applications
>=
>> in Dylan. Do those of you who use OOP in other languages find Dylan's
>=
>> encapsulation of data and methods separately is helpful or that it =
>> degrades OOP? =20
>>
>
>I'm sure others will talk about this in detail, but I feel that
>multi-methods such as in Dylan are much more natural, convenient, and
>flexible than the traditional style of OOP. It's great to be able to
>create methods applicable to a class without having to modify or
>subclass the class.
>
>If you look at Dylan, almost everything is an object. I think that's
>evidence that OOP hasn't been harmed.
I think it's telling that Java, e.g., cannot be implemented using it's own
objects and abstractions from the ground up in Java, but Dylan can be.
(For example, arithmetic and arrays can't be implemented, never
mind extended, in Java, but are just part of the language in Dylan).
Follow-Ups:
References: