|
Right, OO vs functional is not either/or. It's an ever-present duality (data and algorithms) in any language. The problem is that discussions about achieving the optimum balance for a job are too subtle and non-sensational. Bloggers and commenters prefer polemics, so instead you mostly see die-hards who enjoy combative flamewars for an acclaimed tribal superiority. Thankfully, a while back I saw an enlightening wiki page on c2.com.[1] Recognizing the yin-yang relationship where one cannot exist without the other gives a much better understanding of both. The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures." Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress. On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened. 1. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent |