Ayan George schrieb am Di. 22. Nov. 2022 um 16:03:
>
> The Go FAQ begins the answer to the question, "Is Go an object-oriented
> language," with, "yes and no."
>
[…]
> But I feel like programmers bringing their ideas from other less
> ambiguously object oriented languages like Java and C++
OO as a fad? This is Thanksgiving not April Fool’s Day.
> On Nov 24, 2022, at 3:25 PM, TheDiveO wrote:
>
> Reading the "yes and no" part as a newcomer to Go actually made me snigger
> and I though that this kind of answer shows a thorough and differentiated
> thinking not shy of dealing with
Your reading comprehension skills need some work.
The point of “labels matter” was answering Rob Pike’s “why does it matter”
question.
I used extremely different objects - yet both modes of transportation -
intentionally to highlight the need for common definitions in order to
communicate.
> I think the amount of hair-splitting over what is an object oriented
language is reason to say it *isn't* an Object Oriented language at all.
Given the FAQ header's "Is Go an object-oriented language? emphasizing that
"object-oriented" is in lowercase, not the titlecase "Object-Oriented" that
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
> On Nov 23, 2022, at 8:36 PM, Holloway Kean Ho
> wrote:
>
> Your examples have something to do with the developer's psychological problem
> for failing to distingush between objects; not OO, OOP, or any programming
> languages. Neither Java or
> If the answer to that question is "yes and no," it'd be less ambiguous to
simply say, "no." And that would be a definitive way of indicating that it
woul be inappropriate to apply many patterns from object oriented languages
to Go -- and to encourage people to accept Go for what it is.
Go
Human beings survive by classifications and compartmentalizing. Applying a
label associates it with certain traits.
If someone said “I have a car for sale”, and you showed up and it had no wheels
but a hull and a sail - you might be a bit upset.
Whether Go is a car or a boat is up to the
I think in the 1990s it was a debate if Lisp with Common List Object System
(CLOS) is OOP language. The answer they arrive was something like that.
"No, if your definition of OOP is based on C++. But, why your definition of
OOP should be based on C++?"
I think the same fits Go. Go is in many
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:31 AM Ayan George wrote:
>
> For me this is as much if not more of a communications issue than a technical
> one. It seems like the definition of what an OO language is broad enough
> that we could go on forever about if Go is one.
>
> The language developers can
On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 10:16 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:11 AM Robert Engels
> wrote:
> >
> > I do not know why the mailing list is set up as the sender is the
> > user. Is should always have the sender be the list email and the
> > name be the user, or the sender
Great points.
For me this is as much if not more of a communications issue than a
technical one. It seems like the definition of what an OO language is
broad enough that we could go on forever about if Go is one.
The language developers can also choose to declare what it is meant to be
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:11 AM Robert Engels wrote:
>
> I do not know why the mailing list is set up as the sender is the user. Is
> should always have the sender be the list email and the name be the user, or
> the sender details included elsewhere. I don’t have this problem in any other
>
Late binding means you don't need to know the types of your parameters *at
all* when you write a method call. If the language supported late binding,
then you would be able to define all your variables as Object and
*everything would continue to work*.
In Go you could define everything as
Both Java and Go require that a method be instantiated in the declared
interface of the type at compile time. This is contrary to the point of
late binding.
In the case of Go, this cannot be detected, because everything is built
together. But with Java, you cannot call a method on an object
I didn't say Java didn't have late binding, but that it didn't have late
binding of every possible type (the "all things" in Kay's quote).
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:25 AM Robert Engels
wrote:
> Why do you say that Java does not have late binding. It 100% does. In fact
> the JVM supports
The wiki page on late binding discusses the Java facilities in depth.
It also misses things like runtime proxy interfaces.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 10:25 AM, Robert Engels wrote:
>
>
> Why do you say that Java does not have late binding. It 100% does. In fact
> the JVM supports dynamic
Why do you say that Java does not have late binding. It 100% does. In fact the
JVM supports dynamic dispatch to make this as efficient as possible. Then the
JIT optimizes it even more based on runtime behavior.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 10:18 AM, Matt KØDVB wrote:
>
>
> But see
): You can create an
email for participating on this ML for free in minutes. There are
bazilions of such services available all over the Internet.
-j
-- Forwarded message -
From:
Date: Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [go-nuts] clarifying Go FAQ: Is Go an object-oriented
But see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(programming_language)
Self was considered an OO language back when I was a grad student and is
still listed that way today, even though it has neither classes nor
inheritance.
Anyway, my point would be that the term OO originates with Alan Kay and the
Asking "the definition of object oriented programming" seems a bad idea to
me. Alan Kay invented the term, and he was pretty clear that C++ was not
anything like what he had in mind, and yet, a lot of people think C++ is an
object oriented language. I don't, as it happens.
Inheritance used to be
The wiki OO page lists classes as a requirement - but not necessarily
inheritance. Class variables require classes.
Also, your link does not work.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:56 AM, Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:43 PM Robert Engels wrote:
>
>> Go is not
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:43 PM Robert Engels wrote:
> Go is not listed as an OO language on Wikipedia.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language):
"ParadigmMulti-paradigm: concurrent imperative, object-oriented[1][2]"
> Personally I think it is OO-like. OO typically has
Also, there is an interesting point about OO languages made by Rob Pike (on the
wiki page) that would also imply that Go is not OO by design.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:43 AM, Robert Engels wrote:
>
>
> Go is not listed as an OO language on Wikipedia.
>
> Personally I think it is OO-like. OO
Go is not listed as an OO language on Wikipedia.
Personally I think it is OO-like. OO typically has inheritance.
There are also no “class variables” - only package level - which makes some
encapsulation patterns harder (every class has to become a package).
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:06 AM,
The correct answer is actually “yes” because neither classes nor inheritance
are necessary or sufficient for “object-oriented” programming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jexEpE7Yv2A
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Ayan George wrote:
>
>
>
> The Go FAQ begins the answer
The Go FAQ begins the answer to the question, "Is Go an object-oriented
language," with, "yes and no."
https://go.dev/doc/faq#Is_Go_an_object-oriented_language
The section goes on to say that Go has methods but there is no type
hierarchy. I guess those are the yes and no.
But I feel like
26 matches
Mail list logo
