Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Darren New wrote:
Wade Curry wrote:
Verbosity tends to follow along with OO languages, though.
I would disagree. The verbosity comes from trying to look like
traditional languages. There's really only 2 or 3 operations in a
purely OO language: assignment, message dispatch, primitive
invocation, stuff like that.
Careful. There is not universal agreement on that. CLOS most certain
does not qualify as having *message* dispatch.
Yeah yeah. Dynamic polymorphic dispatch. Better? :-)
Indeed, I'd say languages like C++ don't even have message dispatch.
They have method dispatch, but no messages. (I.e., you can't package up
a method dispatch as a data item. There's no class whose instances
represent calls on methods.)
Other languages don't agree that assignment is part of OO.
Really? I can't even imagine a pure OO language that doesn't support
assignment. What language would this be?
IIRC, somewhere there is a list of 9 characteristics of OO.
Yep. And the guy who invented the term originally said there were two
characteristics, and others disagree about one of em. :-)
In any case, the point stands that the verbosity doesn't come from the
OOness. Witness Smalltalk.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
