OOP vs. FP - Hackdot

Re:OOP vs. FP by crimsonalucard on Sunday April 30, 2017 @08:59PM (#14234827)

Is this guy talking about OO as described by smalltalk? Because he says that objects are bags of functions, not data, but in languages like java, c# and c++ objects are bags of both.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OOP vs. FP by noblethrasher on Sunday April 30, 2017 @09:48PM (#14234993)

Yes, he is probably talking about Smalltalk-style OO:

https://medium.com/@richardeng/domo-arigato-mr-smalltalk-aa8...

He's also the subject of this article: https://thenewstack.io/can-man-spark-renaissance-smalltalk-p..., which made the front page of HN a while back (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13642947)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OOP vs. FP by horrido on Sunday April 30, 2017 @10:10PM (#14235099)

It's Uncle Bob who says objects are bags of functions. And this is not specific to Smalltalk nor dynamic languages. In Java, C#, and C++, objects are still just bags of functions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OOP vs. FP by noblethrasher on Sunday April 30, 2017 @10:21PM (#14235167)

Java and C# allow you to expose mutable fields, so objects are not strictly (or even ordinarily) just bags of functions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OOP vs. FP by crimsonalucard on Sunday April 30, 2017 @10:20PM (#14235161)

Yeah but objects in those languages are also bags of data, which he explicitly said they are not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OOP vs. FP by dragonwriter on Monday May 01, 2017 @12:23AM (#14235561)

The C++ family of languages isn't really all that object-oriented; it's practically a different (static, class-oriented) paradigm that takes some inspiration from OOP (mostly from Smalltalk) but more from C's particular implementation of statically-typed procedural programming, as a result they are based around structs-enhanced-with-methods rather than proper objects.

[ Parent | on HN ]