|
|
|
|
|
|
by shevy-java
31 days ago
|
|
|
> Alan Kay's distaste for (static) types is just his opinion and an original contribution of IMO rather dubious value. Not at all. matz, creator of ruby, also dislikes static types. You may begin to realise that good designers and good thinkers dislike
something because there are specific trade-offs. > it seems like the most valuable parts of OOP are private data, convenience (no need to repeat the class name in a method call), good fit for some domains, and interfaces This refers more to the practicality of an implementation. Ruby was always better implemented than smalltalk, for instance, even though I think most would say that smalltalk is the more "pure" language. Ruby is more practical though, IMO. I disagree on the "good fit for some domains" by the way. A great programming language is a great fit in any domain. It just also has to designed well, which is hard, and a trade-off. |
|
|