On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Dhanji R. Prasanna <[email protected]>wrote:
> On a slightly unrelated note, I take issue with the insinuation that > Functional languages do not do the strategy pattern well. I'd say higher > order programming achieves the same goal, and somewhat more elegantly than > the strategy pattern. > > Dhanji. > I'm either missing some key pattern in the FP pattern book, or it's a matter of taste: I find this kind of solution awkward. In the single-method-on-strategy case, it is cleaner, but in the multiple-method-on-strategy case you end up reinventing OO dispatch in a probably-non-standard way. Hmm, I suppose you can work around this in languages that have pattern matching or another way to unroll return values. I find Haskellian classes a very neat functional solution for polymorphism, but this comment was a sort of good-natured, sideways jab intended to be caught by some cow-orkers singing the "silver bullet" refrain with "Clojure" in the "<insert-pattern-or-technology>" slot. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en.
