Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:54:17 +0200
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 - 18:54:17 CEST