Re: Entity and Identity
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 5, 12:38 am, rp_at_raampje.(none) (Reinier Post) wrote:
> Nilone wrote:
> >On Aug 4, 1:30 am, rp_at_raampje.(none) (Reinier Post) wrote:
> >> Nilone wrote:
> >> >I'm opposing OO as implemented in the current suite of mainstream
> >> >languages - more specifically, I'm opposing the class systems of
> >> >mainstream languages. I have no problem with state machines.
> >> Then how do you express them? How do you express state change?
> >> --
> >> Reinier
> >I realize that the mechanisms of OO classes are suited (I suppose I'll
> >yield to the point of saying well-suited) to creating state machines.
> >I still believe that some of these mechanisms (e.g. implementation
> >inheritance) are problematic for this purpose.
> So what is your alternative for expressing dynamics (behavior)
> in a disciplined,maintainable way? Is a big bag of procedures
> that can query and update arbitrary data as they please *better*?
I've already accepted that OO classes are appropriate for creating state machines, hence I'm not offering alternatives. Note that "a big bag of procedures that can query and update arbitrary data as they please" is an unfair characterization of procedural programming, similar to "a big bag of objects that can query and update each other as they please". Received on Wed Aug 05 2009 - 08:58:51 CEST