Warren, I can't speak for others, but I can say that personally one of the reasons I love Clojure so much is that it doesn't try to be a OOP language, instead it cleanly separates data from logic. Clojure is not a OOP language and (hopefully) will never attempt to be so. But this separation of logic and data should be very, very carefully examined. Here's an example:
(defprotocol IFoo (foo-func [this])) (defrecord Foo [num] IFoo (foo-func [this] num)) (defn foo [num] (Foo. num)) This is the idiomatic way to write Clojure code, and if you read the .java files in Clojure you'll see that they are laid out the same way. Many classes have a static "create" function that does the actual data processing, while the constructors do simple assignment. So what's so great about all this? To the OOP programmer you would see this as "an interface, a object with a overriding member, and a factory function". But this is simply not the case. What we are defining, is a collection of polymorphic functions (IFoo), a data-structure that installs a function into this polymorphic function, and a constructor function. So even here, where there appears to be OOP style abstractions and conventions, it's really just syntactic sugar over FP code. Clojure is less of a OOP language than most people realize. Timothy -- 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
