Re: But is it Object-Oriented?

Quoting Isaac Gouy <[email protected]>:

> > I'm not negating your experience. I just think that this confusion
> > can be overcome by better documentation 
> 
> Documentation certainly plays a part in setting expectations:
> 
> "Comparison to C++ and Smalltalk: In C++ and Smalltalk, a class
> contains the equivalent of methods. In Dylan, a class does not contain
> methods; instead, a method belongs to a generic function. This design
> decision enables these powerful features of Dylan: ...
> 
> In Dylan, a method belongs to a generic function, as shown in Figure
> 3.1, page 30. Although methods are independent of classes, methods
> operate on instances of classes. A method states the types of objects
> for which it is applicable by the type constraint of each of its
> required parameters..." 
> 
> http://www.gwydiondylan.org/books/dpg/db_40.html
> 
> That seems to describe the programming model of Nice?

I agree that this is the type of description I am very satisfied with. Actually,
it seems strange that every language manual should have to explain multimethods.
Maybe it is enough to just say "we have multiple dispatch," describe the
Nice-specific dispatch details and be done. Include a link to a tutorial of
multimethods in a footnote.

But, that is easy for me to say since I already know what multimethods are. :)

- Brian



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click