[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Results: finished teaching one Dylan course
If explained well to a beginner it would make more sense than C++/Java's
"actions inside objects". The idea that you have objects, and you have
actions that may be performed on them by the computer which will be affected
by what the objects actually are, will get fewer blank looks than starting
to talk about defining a wag method on a dog.
The existence of "friend" in C++ shows how broken single dispatch and
methods-inside-objects is.
Examples, erm....
If the president is talking to the janitor, the code will be different from
the janitor talking to the president. And then if you get two janitors or
two presidents speaking to each other, it will be different again. Although
one of the Janitors may be Hong Kong Phooey. :-)
- Rob.
>From: ejr@lotus.cs.berkeley.edu (Edward Jason Riedy)
>To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
>Subject: Re: Results: finished teaching one Dylan course
>Date: Sat, Jun 10, 2000, 4:15 am
>
> But this is why I'm wondering how natural multiple dispatch, etc. is
> to beginners. To me now, this type of object system is sensible, but
> the objects-are-packages-of-stuff made much more sense than the
> CLOS/Dylan way when I was first learning.
Follow-Ups: