Re: Closures versus objects

> The big difference for me is purity - a pure object system has
> consistent semantics while a system based on first-class functions
> ends up having both functions and object-like-things built with
> functions. And that non-pure dynamic object code has type
> dependencies, which are at odds with code reuse and flexibility.
>
> - Steve

    But what about the idea that closures are a fundamental concept in
computer science, and any sufficiently enlightened language design
should inlcude them?  In a functional language, it seems closures are
a natural consequence, and to not have them one would have to go out
of one's way to deliberately break the functional paradigm.  And then,
one probably couldn't call it a functional language anymore.

    Assuming of course you were referring to language design.  If you
mean, "closures are fine to have in a language, but don't use them to
build an OO system", my point is moot.

    Regardless I am puzzled by your last sentence.  What dependencies are
you talking about?  Others have argued that if anything closures have
fewer strings attached than objects.