From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <5m01t8$so5$1@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Chris Bitmead uid(x22068) (·············@Alcatel.com.au) wrote:
: In article <···················@ducky.net> ····@ducky.net (Mike Haertel) writes:
[Snip]
: >As usual in computer science, we argue about names...
: >
: >My definition of "object oriented programming" is roughly
: >"programming with entities of private mutable data packaged
: >with associated code".
: Well that definition would be wrong. Prove it to yourself. Are you
: saying that if I write vast hierarchies of objects with inheritance
: and so on, but don't happen to need to mutate anything, that it is not
: OO?
I agree with Chris. While mutability might be associated with OO,
it is not a necessary part of it, just like mutability is not
a necessary part of programming.
: >Now, you can combine immutable data with dynamic dispatch
: >and you'll get *something* (I'd call it functional
: >programming with generic functions) but if you can never
: >change object data the only way to compute is to constantly
: >be creating new objects. At this point you've tossed
: >the conservation-of-mass principle out the window and
: >completely lost any resemblance to physical objects.
: What a lot of rot. Basicly there are two ways of modelling time with a
: computer. Implicitely - by mutating things, and Explicitely, by
: creating a new thing to model the new state of affairs.
Full agreement.
: Who was that philosopher who set out to prove that he was the same
: person now as he was 10 years ago, and failed to do so?
:) I frankly see nothing wrong with just returning new objects that
are the results of messages passed to old ones -- I mean we're returning
new data based on functions applied to old ones, so what's the big
deal about?
--
Cya,
Ahmed
When they bury me no tears will be cried.
"Potential Suicide" by Black Market Baby
On 21 May 1997 23:53:12 GMT, ········@Bayou.UH.EDU
(········@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
>I agree with Chris. While mutability might be associated with OO,
>it is not a necessary part of it, just like mutability is not
>a necessary part of programming.
IMHO mutation and object orientation are completely orthogonal!
>Cya,
>Ahmed
ABW
--
DOS Box: Windows for Early Warning and Defence supports
a fully functional DOS emulation, allowing one to
consider tactical matters with legacy applications,
such as "Sid Meyer's Civilisation ][" or "Lemmings".
FUN: http://www.abwillms.demon.co.uk/alaric/wfewad.htm
INTERESTING: http://www.abwillms.demon.co.uk/os/
OTHER: http://www.abwillms.demon.co.uk/