[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Re: Still cryptic OOP syntax
- From: Jamie Webb <j@...>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:08 +0000
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:42:58AM +1100, skaller wrote:
> > I did
> > something similar for the simple types (integer, reals, booleans;
> > anything that doesn't carry an object reference) in the form of a
> > large single level switch that decodes values combined from the
> > operator and the operand types. Fast and simple, and yet makes it
> > trivial to implement things like "Pascal style divison" (integer /
> > integer ==> real, rather than integer).
> > The problems gather when you get to operations on objects...
> Of course. It's impossible. This is the covariance
> problem I referred to in another post.
> YOu need n^2 routines for n types, which doesn't fit
> into the n methods OO allows... this kills OO as a
> programming methodology with a one line argument.
It's certainly one of the numerous flaws in Java, but I don't think
you can dismiss OO in general so easily. Surely in a dynamically typed
language nothing more than multiple dispatch is required?
-- Jamie Webb