> (and to be honest, Warren, I think you're beating yourself up somewhat
> by trying to shoehorn OO practices into Clojure in the first place but
> maybe that's something everyone goes thru if they are heavily steeped
> in OO thinking, when they first try to adopt an FP language?)
>
>
As difficult as you can see why I keep coming up crazy OO-like proposals, I
am also puzzled by the seemingly OO-phobia in the community. If the reason
for a OO practice is good, we can considere using it. If not, we don't.
Also, the proposal here is not "FP vs imperative". The created object is
still immutable, and does not violate any FP principles.
As of going through FP, after some time, I started see certain benefits of
FP, but I see nothing saying FP cannot use some ideas in OO.
> p.s. to be honest, I still don't see enough benefits in records that
> outweigh their limitations to use them in the first place - unless I
> needed a type that would interop with Java or I was using protocols...
>
Well, my impression is quite some people (including me) in the community
find records and protocols very useful and use them quite a bit. So, as
long as records do not do any harm for folks who are happy with regular
maps, records and protocols are a sure-win, right?
I think one of LISP principle is being versatile and adaptable ("many right
ways" vs "only one right way" in Python). So I am kind of puzzled by the
inertia here unless some harm can be demonstrated on the proposal.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
