Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <2006061118541731729-unclebob@objectmentorcom>

On 2006-06-01 08:36:38 +0200, "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> said:

> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>> frebe73_at_gmail.com a écrit :
>> 
>> I'm afraid your confusing OO (ie: *object* oriented) with
>> "class-oriented" (like in Java). In a "true OO language", *everything*
>> is an object. So functions are objects too. So functions are first-order.

>
> Java is object oriented by any reasonable definition of the term.
>
> Your claim about "*everything* is an object" and therefore in an
> OOPL, functions must be objects, is not valid. It is not the
> case that *everything* in an OOPL is an object. Is a comment
> an object? Is private or public an object? Is a field an
> object? No.
>
> OOPLs have methods. There is no requirement to have
> functions be objects to qualify an as OOPL.

I agree with you Marshall, but I also agree that closures are very nice.

Have you played with Ruby? It's nice to pass a function into a list and have it executed on each member. It's nice to be able to specify that function right in line with the call.

Actually, it's better than nice, it's a very different way to program.

-- 
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)  | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com
Object Mentor Inc.            | blog:  www.butunclebob.com
The Agile Transition Experts  | web:   www.objectmentor.com
800-338-6716                  |

Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 11:54:17 CDT