[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

Swift has an interesting take on composition via protocols (note, it also has the concept of single inheritance): https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Protocols.html it avoids copying anything into the child class, but rather sets up

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

I'm sorry, but I didn't find the ScalaJulia project as you mentioned. On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:39:04 PM UTC+2, ssarkaray...@gmail.com wrote: > > I am confident that a new OOP language *ScalaJulia *is possible > integrating syntax of both functional languages Scala and Julia. > Thanks,

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

Is it ice cream on steak or a new steak sauce added to streak ? On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-7, Christof Stocker wrote: > > My two favorite languages combined! Then again, I wouldn't want ice cream > on my steak :-) > > On 2015-10-19 19:39, ssarkaray...@gmail.com wrote: > > I

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

As for class composition, this is how Scala does it: http://www.scala-lang.org/old/node/117 I've previously suggested introducing a `trait` label as to keep type and dispatch information separate. Thus you could do: trait A x::Int64 y::Int64 end trait B z::Int64 end type foo(A, B) <:

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

I think I am not talking about the same thing with you guys. In my definition, the difference of single/multiple dispatch has nothing to do with what I am talking. What I talked about is just a suitable way for encapsulation. For example, the example code can include a type and multiple

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 07:38:24 PM Abe Schneider wrote: > > Julia isn’t object-oriented, and will probably never be. But that doesn’t > > make it less powerful :) > > Of course it doesn't make it less powerful, but it also doesn't alway lead > to nice code. The point of OOP isn't that it

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

I think I agree with 90% of what you wrote. I also don't know if anyone is arguing about single or multiple dispatch. Also, while Java and Borland's Object Pascal claimed a strong OO paradigm, C++ does does not (if you read Bjarne's design guide, he felt strongly that both OOP and functional

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

My main argument in this thread is that I wouldn't consider Julia "true OO" in the terms many other languages would define it, but trying not to pass any real judgement of whether that is a good thing or not (I agree with Stefan that it's an interesting experiment, and the language is still a

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

Here's an example where there would normally be a strict hierarchy in classic OOP: Square <: Rectangle <: Shape But it actually makes much more sense in Julia (why have 2 fields for Square??): abstract Shape > type Rectangle > width::Int > height::Int > end > type Square >

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

My two favorite languages combined! Then again, I wouldn't want ice cream on my steak :-) On 2015-10-19 19:39, ssarkarayushnet...@gmail.com wrote: I am confident that a new OOP language *ScalaJulia *is possible integrating syntax of both functional languages Scala and Julia. Thanks, SS

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, Tom Breloff wrote: > > Here's an example where there would normally be a strict hierarchy in > classic OOP: Square <: Rectangle <: Shape > > But it actually makes much more sense in Julia (why have 2 fields for > Square??): > Unfortunately

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

I am confident that a new OOP language *ScalaJulia *is possible integrating syntax of both functional languages Scala and Julia. Thanks, SS On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:41:58 AM UTC-7, Sisyphuss wrote: > > When I'm learning Julia, I am always thinking what is the correct way to > do OOP in

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:09 PM, wrote: > I am confident that a new OOP language *ScalaJulia *is possible > integrating syntax of both functional languages Scala and Julia. > Thanks, > SS > This post wins the thread.

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

Going a bit on a tangent, I claim that object-oriented programming, at least as embodied in C++, is not really suitable for scientific computing and in fact has led certain codes to go astray. To give a simple example, suppose you are told to write a 'matrix' class in C++ that contains all the

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

> > > But I agree with Tobias and Simon - there is very little reason to try to > make Julia more object-oriented. All the power you get from OO is still > there, but you might need to think a little differently to harness it. If > you have a concrete problem, along the lines of “this is how

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 1:15:50 PM UTC, Simon Danisch wrote: > > Besides the current flaws, > As already argued ("fully OOP", just not in the traditional way/syntax), not a flaw, just different ("composition-over-inheritance"). Don't you agree with "no flaw"? You seem, by what you

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

I’ve never seen a problem that foo.bar(x,y) can solve, but bar(foo, x, y) can’t. There *are* things, however, that are pretty easy to do in OO languages that can’t be done in Julia; one such thing is adding/changing behavior through inheritance. That’s pretty easy to work around, though -

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

It's a highly debatable claim that single dispatch class-based OO leads to better or more maintainable software designs. I grew up on these kinds of languages – Object Pascal, C++, Ruby, Java. Despite the ongoing rhetoric that this paradigm solves all sorts of program design problems, that's just

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:44:21 PM UTC-4, vav...@uwaterloo.ca wrote: > > Going a bit on a tangent, I claim that object-oriented programming, at > least as embodied in C++, is not really suitable for scientific computing > and in fact has led certain codes to go astray. > C++ is

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

Julia is fully object oriented. The core of OO is not to write a dot between an object and an associated function but that one has virtual functions. Multiple dispatch provides just that. Cheers Tobi Am Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015 15:15:50 UTC+2 schrieb Simon Danisch: > > This design has at

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

I would say that the module is closest to a c++ namespace, which itself can be thought of as a static class. Note, however, that in both cases you can't really have separate instances. Because of the desire to separate dispatch from type information, Julia doesn't really follow the OOP

[julia-users] Re: Julia and Object-Oriented Programming

This design has at least 3 issues, since you can't have instances of a module. In general: I personally would value the discussion of why Julia needs more OOP constructs much more, If one can show that there are terrible flaws in Julia's model which are swiftly solvable with OOP. My guess is,