Re:Scala founder: Language due for 'fundamental rethink'
by pron on Saturday September 06, 2014 @12:03PM
(#8278639)
But look at Clojure. It's imperative yet quite FP, but much of the language rests on OO polymorphism. Clojure certainly isn't an OO language (in fact, it is decisively "anti-OOP"), but it does mix an essential OO idea, and that actually helps keep the language simple.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Scala founder: Language due for 'fundamental rethink'
by cies on Saturday September 06, 2014 @04:33PM
(#8279382)
I would not call Clojure imperative myself. To my best knowledge it allows imperative style just as much as declarative. And having read some Clojure code before I thought that it's community kind of prefers declarative for most things.
Re:Scala founder: Language due for 'fundamental rethink'
by pjmlp on Sunday September 07, 2014 @05:06AM
(#8280630)
> Clojure certainly isn't an OO language
Multi-methods and protocols
Re:Scala founder: Language due for 'fundamental rethink'
by pron on Sunday September 07, 2014 @07:06AM
(#8280773)
That was my point: even though Rich Hickey pretty much touts Clojure as an anti-OOP language, Clojure still relies heavily on OO polymorphism, yet it doesn't make the language any more complicated -- in fact, it helps keep it simple.
Re:Scala founder: Language due for 'fundamental rethink'
by pjmlp on Sunday September 07, 2014 @07:44AM
(#8280838)
Sorry I misinterpreted it.
As someone that likes multi-paradigm languages, I tend to dislike that many FP guys "forget" their languages also do have first class support for OO when needed.
Somehow, I did not read you comment properly and spitted out a bad comment.