RE: s-exprs + prototypes

["Anton van Straaten" <address@hidden>]

Matt Hellige wrote:
> [Anton van Straaten <anton@appsolutions.com>]
> >
> > Given all this, a question that could be asked, which I do mainly
> > rhetorically and for thought-provoking purposes, is why a language would
> > implement something as simple as a pair in terms of a much more complex
> > structure, such as an OO object or class?  Isn't that a little like
> > implementing a scooter by strapping a platform with handlebars
> > to the top of an SUV?
> >
>
> Well, rhetorically speaking, is it really better to go the other way?
> Would you rather implement an SUV by first building a really tough,
> heavy-duty scooter, then strapping 5000 pounds of steel and a
> big-ass engine to the top?
>
> When it comes to language design, I guess I feel like that's actually
> the right approach, more or less (but better make that scooter really
> bulletproof and low-friction)... But the analogy makes it sound
> awfully silly...

Hey, you turned my analogy upside down and broke it!  OK, bad analogy.  When
it comes to functions vs. objects, I see functions as atoms and objects from
any given object model as a particular class of molecules, i.e. not all
possible molecules.  I want to be able to use atoms to build other kinds of
molecules, and I don't want to have to resort to some low-level language to
have to do that, nor do I want to have to use an excessively high-level
language which may entail a design approach or other assumptions that aren't
appropriate.

Of course, the one-object-model fans think of their particular kind of
objects as atoms, but I find that doesn't work for me, because of the
paradigm and associated restrictions it imposes.

Anton