Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 8/20/2012 4:02, Invisible wrote:
> > Object-oriented programming was supposed to make everything polymorphic and
> > wonderful.

> Uh, no.

What do you mean? Isn't *everything* in a pure OO language an object (that
can be inherited from and specialized)?

> > But then they discovered the container problem, so they invented
> > generics.

> The container problem you describe is only a problem for statically typed 
> languages.

I'm not sure the problem is any better in dynamically typed languages.

In a statically typed language you get an error at compile time if you
try to put an object of the wrong type in a container. In a dynamically
typed language you get an error at runtime when you try to use it. Is this
really "better"? I wouldn't say so.

> > This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. All these different languages,
> > all with lots and lots of "features" for trying to solve stuff. And then
> > there's Haskell, which consists of just 6 constructs in the entire language,
> > and solves all of it.

> And Smalltalk

Don't forget Lisp.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message