On 5-Jan-07, at 12:22 PM, Eduardo Cavazos wrote: > This defeats the purpose of object oriented code. Comparing > Smalltalk style OO > with generic functions, Smalltalk wins here; a smalltalker doesn't > worry > about two classes having the same method name.
Factor OO is different from Smalltalk OO. > I don't think those should be a part of the car/aeroplane protocol. > However I > may have a program that needs to move cars, aeroplanes, files, and > windows. Moving a window is a fundamentally different operation than moving a file or a car. > A programming language should not make the programmer think about > where the > GENERIC: statement should go. The implementation should keep track of > bookkeeping like that. All a programmer should have to do is define > methods > over objects and let the language take care of the rest. What you're arguing for is message-passing OO. It is not inherently better than generic functions, it is just a different approach. If you want that, you can implement your own object system in Factor. However the core object system will remain as it is now. Slava ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
