From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/08 Message-ID: <68TAah0-3RB@herold.franken.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153966829 references: <67pyPs0-3RB@herold.franken.de> newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jsa@organon.com wrote 08.05.96 on Re: Real OO: > > Well, it's the same with functions and routines. They were introduced > > to reuse code (rings a bell, doesn't it?). But nowadays I find myself > > using them just for naming a chunk of code. > > This is a blatant abuse of the concept of a subroutine; after all, I > > Why do you say that? I see no "abuse" of the concept at all. > Subprograms stand for a piece of functionality. That's not the original intent. Subprograms just happened to be useful for stuff the original inventors didn't consider. I think it's the same for classes; now people say "no, don't abuse classes for modules, that's a far too big gun at a small target". > Whether you use it > zero times, once, or a zillion times has no bearing on this. How this > is implmented also has no bearing on the _concept_. I am speaking > about what it is typically taken to stand for in a conceptual sense. In language usage, words have a tendency to acquire new concepts if they are halfways appropriate. This has happened with the concept of subroutine, and I expect it to happen with the concept of class. Of course less syntactic sugar for simple classes would be helpful. But I find myself using subroutines in spite of their clumsiness when it comes to just naming a piece of code, so I guess clumsiness doesn't really count in such a context. > Yes, I know. They are (typically) part of LACE (hmmm, if they are > actually called clusters, maybe the extra language environment that > the implementation is offering has to be called LACE...) And since > it is an add on, it is not as strong a notion and is YALL (yet another > little language)... Well, I think Bertrand has said what can be said about this. Clusters are a really central concept in BON. Lace is certainly YALL, but BON isn't... and Lace or an equivalent is part of BON. -Joachim -- Looking for a new job. Resume available on request.