begin quoting Christopher Smith as of Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 04:26:59PM -0700: > Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > I'd also ask how using such a definition would possibly make a > >program better. > > Definitions and semantics usually don't have an impact on programming.
Funny, that's the biggest arguments we have in the design meetings. We argue definitions and semantics. And if we can nail 'em down, good things happen. And if we don't, and merely come to an agreement, we might get bit later. > That being said, functors are a great way to make functions first class > objects, thereby letting you do functional programming, and that can > indeed make for better programs. Sometimes. There's a lot to be said for being able to understand a program by reading the source code instead of having to run it to see what it does. But when a functor is useful... oh, is it ever useful! > > At the end of which I'd probably be trying not to laugh, and I'd be > >reassured in my main reason for using C over C++ - that OOP people > >really overcomplicate simple things. > > Shame on you for looking at C++ as an example of what OOP people do. If Indeed. C++ is example of how to make a language complex. > you look at C and then look at Smalltalk, one might very reasonably > reach the conclusion that procedural programming people really > overcomplicate simple things. ;-) Too many of the Smalltalk community are enamoured of GUIs... not all, thankfully. But "Smalltalk" isn't just a language. It's also an IDE. And a runtime. . . -Stewart "Playing with GST off and on" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
