Well, templates are much more than for just supporting polymorphism. I have asked Alan Kay about his definition of "object oriented" and he told > me in 2003: > > OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding > of state-process, and extreme LateBinding of all things. > > See http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/doc_kay_oop_en >
I was greatly inspired by Alan Kay's notion of "extreme late-binding of all things". Templates can be thought of as a form late-binding of functions. On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 1:25:12 PM UTC-5, Max Hayden Chiz wrote: > > Still playing with ATS and I was wondering why the template system was > implemented as it was instead of as a compiler switch to just monomorphise > polymorphic stuff. Is there some significant usage case where these two > approaches differ? Or is it somehow easier/better for the compiler to have > explicit templates? Or does monomorphisation run into problems when > combined with dependent types? Very curious as to what the answer is. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ats-lang-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ats-lang-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to ats-lang-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ats-lang-users/7722bac7-86d3-46a4-917e-1f132ee85578%40googlegroups.com.
