Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” (2003)

Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ... by joe_the_user on Sunday March 17, 2019 @09:33PM (#19418045)

Yeah, I don't think that ever could work. And that's kind of a problem. At best, what you would have is a system where different parts have "names"/ids but there's no guarantee that a named object is going to actually be present and so each object has to be able to handle the situation when the object isn't there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ... by bunderbunder on Sunday March 17, 2019 @09:42PM (#19418083)

There are plenty of Erlang programmers out there who, I'm guessing, would happily tell you that it works quite well.

(Just don't ask them about the ets module.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ... by vidarh on Monday March 18, 2019 @07:01AM (#19420092)

Ruby works like that, and it works just fine, unless you're dealing with developers that are intentionally trying to mess with your head.

The reality is that most of the time when the world is dynamically changing, there are reasons for it.

E.g. the typical Ruby example is an ORM where the methods available reflects the database schema of the database you just connected to. Whether you get an exception because the method you expected doesn't exist, or get an exception because some generated method got an error from the database doesn't matter: You need to deal with it either way.

All that changes in practice is the name of the error condition you need to handle.

[ Parent | on HN ]