News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks. Parent comment

Re:Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks by vukk on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @03:56AM (#4254703)
This is a pointless argument, since both views are "correct". Even Joe Armstrong says that "You can take two views, you can say that either erlang isn't object oriented... [or] you can say its more object oriented than all the object oriented languages."

But I do not think it's very useful to say that Erlang is object oriented, since it will confuse a lot of people, since it is not anything like the other "object oriented languages".

http://www.infoq.com/interviews/Erlang-Joe-Armstrong http://www.infoq.com/interviews/johnson-armstrong-oop

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Joe Armstrong: Why OO Sucks by Ingaz on Sunday July 22, 2012 @07:19AM (#4277079)
>>But I do not think it's very useful to say that Erlang is object oriented, since it will confuse a lot of people

I find it useful to instill this kind of confusion in people around me.

"You talk about encapsulation? Look at erlang"

"Polymorphism? Haskel"

"OOP? Javascript, CLOS"

"Static/dynamic typing? Look here - your java code is in fact dynamic, if you're really want to taste real static - look at ML-family or something near"

[ Parent | on HN ]