Why we used Pony to write Wallaroo

Re:Why we used Pony to write Wallaroo by scottlf on Thursday October 26, 2017 @03:27PM (#15562185)

Howdy. Erlang's modules are involved in code namespace for the compiler & runtime (i.e., the 'M' of the 'MFA' triple of Module + Function name + Arity that names a function) as well being the unit/scope/bound for hot code loading (i.e., you must load or unload an entire module at a time).

I've worked in Erlang-land far longer than I've lived in any OOP-land, so I'm not sure what you mean by enterprise'y OOP. Coincidentally, Pony's rules for "Packages" are something I just smacked my ignorant head against a few hours ago. The subsections of https://tutorial.ponylang.org/packages/ in the tutorial can probably answer at least some of your question: specifically "Package System" and "Use Statement".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we used Pony to write Wallaroo by pdimitar on Thursday October 26, 2017 @04:30PM (#15562741)

I'll take the liberty to speculate and assume your parent comment was asking if Pony classes have the same features as Java classes -- namely class-level attributes, instance-level attributes, different access levels to attributes and methods. Those things.

So, does it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we used Pony to write Wallaroo by spooneybarger on Thursday October 26, 2017 @04:42PM (#15562814)

Pony classes have methods. Pony classes have fields.

Fields and methods can be public or private. Private is akin to Java's package private.

There are no instance variables.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we used Pony to write Wallaroo by pdimitar on Thursday October 26, 2017 @08:54PM (#15564678)

Thank you. And structs / records? I mean, if there are no instance fields, there has to be some kind of constructs that emulate them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we used Pony to write Wallaroo by spooneybarger on Thursday October 26, 2017 @09:26PM (#15564854)

Sorry, I mispoke. There are no class fields. Only instance fields.

[ Parent | on HN ]