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

From: Robert Martin <>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <2006061118541731729-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>

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

> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>> 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:
Object Mentor Inc.            | blog:
The Agile Transition Experts  | web:
800-338-6716                  |
Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 18:54:17 CEST

Original text of this message