On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Stefano Lanzavecchia <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Raul Miller >> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Several questions about j >> >> objects are not first-class citizens in any object oriented language. > > Why do you say that? As far as I can tell in Smalltalk and Self , at the > very least, objects are very first class.
This discussion probably belongs in the chat forum. Personally, at least, I am not writing any code here, nor am I designing any. But I will leave this reply in the programming forum, since I do not know if you have subscribed to the chat forum. (But unless this turns into a programming topic, please let's move this over to chat.) In object oriented languages, you can only pass a <<reference to an object>> to a method, and not <<the object itself>>. I believe that this is a requirement of such a language, based on the definition of an object. And, when people talk about "deep copying" or "deep freezing" objects, this distinction has become an issue. That said, "first classness" is a matter of perspective. If <<being able to refer to the an object>> allows for an object to be a first class citizen of an object oriented language, then J's verbs are probably first class citizens of the J language. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
