I think part of the appeal of dot-notation OO is that it reads left-to-right, which helps to make the code seem to read in the same order as the sequence of actions taken.
— John On Jan 8, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Tobias Knopp <[email protected]> wrote: > Would be interesting to see some use cases where "Java-like" OO better fits > than Julias OO. In C++ one can use both and usually choses based on whether > the dispatching can be done at runtime or at compile time (i.e. classes with > virtual function for runtime decisions and templates for compile time > decisions). > There are many situations where I would have liked to use generic programming > in C++ but it was not possible as the type was only known at runtime. In > Julia this is no issue which makes it such a joy to use. > > > Am Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 14:17:20 UTC+1 schrieb Stefan Karpinski: > It's a bit hard to say whether Julia is object-oriented or not. I suspect > that for a lot of people, object-oriented means "do you write `x.f(y)` a > lot?" By that metric, Julia is not very object oriented. On the other hand, > everything you can do with single-dispatch o.o. in C++ or Java, you can > easily simulate with multiple dispatch, but you'll have to get used to > writing `f(x,y)` instead of `x.f(y)`. If your notion of object-orientation > has more to do with encapsulation and/or message passing, then we start to > look pretty non-o.o. again. > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Matthias BUSSONNIER <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Le 7 janv. 2014 à 21:48, Erik Engheim a écrit : > >> Thanks for the nice comments all of you. I guess I have to keep writing more >> about my Julia experiences after this ;-) >> >> On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 9:39:05 PM UTC+1, Ivar Nesje wrote: >> Great post, it sums up very well the things I think is the strengths of >> Julia. >> >> A few notes: >> Julia does not look up the method at runtime if the types of the arguments >> to the function can be deduced from the types of the arguments to the >> surrounding function (but it behaves that way for the user, unless he >> redefines the method after the function was compiled #265). >> >> >> That is cool I didn't know that. I assume this can make quite a big >> difference in performance for tight inner loops. > > > Some misc comment too : > > > Julia is not object oriented > > Is that True ? From the manual : > > > It is multi-paradigm, combining features of imperative, functional, and > > object-oriented programming. > > I consider that Julia can be OO, the code just look different than in other > languages. > > > Typo ? > > Polymorphis lets you > Missing m ? > > Liked the blog post too otherwise thanks, I would also have mentioned > code_lowered, code_llvm and code_typed > not everyone is fluent assembler and those tool are really useful to, > especially in metaprogramming. > > -- > M >
