[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Henning von Rosen wrote:

> Does that mean that there are mappings between the vocabularies of OO resp
> FP, or that the concepts of each is built upon partly in-common more basic
> priciples?

(1) "They" are largely built on common basic principles.  (I use
    quotes because it obviously depends on the language in question.)

(2) There are mappings between the two.  This used to be a very active 
    area of research.

> So, you mean once putting dynamic dispach / generic functions into a
> funlang, thats all that is useful from the OO world? 

Well, that's the sound-bite version of it, yeah.  I think a fuller
discussion is, unfortunately, best done with a blackboard.

Note that I'm speaking here from a strictly operational perspective.
The changes to the type system (assuming your funlang has one) would
be non-trivial.  So would the changes to your design philosophy!  So
the overall effect would not be trivial.

Nevertheless, I do think OO is heavily oversold.  It's particularly
excessively revered by people who have come to it directly from Pascal
or C, avoiding functional languages.  (Example: people who say "OO is
about data abstraction".  And what is ML about?  Plucking chickens?)