On 8/27/2012 4:33, Warp wrote:
> 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)?

It was the "and wonderful" I was referring to.

>>> 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.

Well, if you don't like dynamically typed languages, then generics seems to 
be a decent solution. They didn't "discover the container problem then 
invent generics."

>>> 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.

None of which are particularly popular. Do you wonder why?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message