grain versus tofu (was: Closures versus objects)
Vadim Nasardinov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.lightweight |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thursday 15 February 2007 14:13, Mike Newhall wrote: > One topic that seems to have been a perennial or at least occasional > topic of discussion is the relationship between closures and objects > and their substitutability. Pragmatically speaking, you need both. For proof by eminent authority[1], look no further than Scala[2]. Nah, scratch that. Look no further than the upcoming rework of ECMAScript[3] (née JavaScript) designated as the Next Big Language by Steve Yegge -- the man who separates the sheep from the goats, the bogus from the bona fide, the wheat from its inferior tofu-based substitute[4]. ________________________________________________________________________________ Footnotes. 1. http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.html#1.10Proofbyeminentauthority 2. http://www.scala-lang.org/ 3. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2007/02/threads_suck.html 4. http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html