| ▲ | constantcrying 5 days ago | |
>I think his definition of OO is different to what we've got used to. No. His definition is exactly what people are taught OOP is. It is what I was taught, it is what I have seen taught, it is what I see people mean when they say they are doing OOP. > Perhaps his definition needs a different name. No. Your definition needs a different name. Polymorphic functions are not OOP. If you give someone standard Julia code, a language entirely built around polymorphic functions, they would tell you that it is a lot of things, except nobody would call it OOP. Importantly polymorphic functions work without class hierarchies. And calling anything without class hierarchies "OOP" is insane. | ||
| ▲ | igouy 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
"The expression problem matrix … In object-oriented languages, it's easy to add new types but difficult to add new operations … Whereas in functional languages, it's easy to add new operations but difficult to add new types" https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/the-expression-problem-an... | ||
| ▲ | rr808 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
OK then in his base class he has function pointers to different implementations. How can you compile a base class Shape with C++ in a library that will have derivations you dont know about? | ||