Re:What is a functional programming language?
by Zak on Thursday January 13, 2011 @09:30PM
(#2102289)
The author claims that Clojure tries to do OO. While Clojure does allow interaction with Java's object model, I think it's quite a stretch to say that it tries to do OO. Use of Java interop features for purposes other than interacting with a Java library or framework is generally discouraged.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:What is a functional programming language?
by swannodette on Thursday January 13, 2011 @09:42PM
(#2102322)
The article is a year and a half old. Clojure doesn't "try" to do OO- multimethods always worked pretty well, and with 1.2.0 it does OO very well.
Clojure design philosophy is essentially "OOP: The Good Parts".
Re:What is a functional programming language?
by mahmud on Thursday January 13, 2011 @10:59PM
(#2102481)
For there to be "Good Parts" of OOP, there would have to be a single kind of OOP.
P.S. Smalltalk.
Re:What is a functional programming language?
by loewenskind on Friday January 14, 2011 @03:06AM
(#2102908)
That doesn't follow. If we define "OOP" to encompasses everything that anyone calls OOP then it's very possible for there to be "good parts" and "bad parts" in that set.
P.S. Smalltalk is a beautiful language with a great deal to offer anyone, but multimethods are superior. The fact that multimethods don't require multiple dispatch patterns demonstrates this.
Re:What is a functional programming language?
by jfoutz on Friday January 14, 2011 @01:27AM
(#2102784)
i always miss interfaces in smalltalk. sometimes i really want a guarantee that the receiver will actually listen when i send a particular message. Even if you don't agree with that part, interfaces are really nice because the system will tell you, "hey, you forgot to add a method to respond to X. you got the other four, but spaced out this one. you should do something about that."