Re: But is it Object-Oriented?

'many practicing programmers used to single-dispatching object-oriented
languages complain that multi-methods just don't feel object-oriented.'

> Their later solution was to revert to the generic function approach
> and solve encapsulation issues at the module level. IMO, for a
> multimethod language this makes the most sense. 

I only quoted that paper as evidence that there was nothing new about
asking "But is it Object-Oriented?" with reference to multi-method
languages.


> In Java/Eiffel/C++ there is the idea that an ADT is implemented by a
> class. In ML, Haskel, and languages with generic functions, it would
> be more appropriate to say that an ADT is implemented by a module,
> where a module is a collection of types and methods defined on those
> types. 

"A class was defined as both a structural system component - a module -
and a type. In contrast, a package is only a module." 

Meyer's viewpoint - refering to Ada packages (of course, imperative
langauges such as Modula, Ada, Oberon-2 implement ADT with modules.)

When we talk of interfaces in Nice, we should be thinking about the
features that are public in a package - not about a type. As you've
said, the Java "interfaces" idea makes no sense when the unit of
encapsulation is module, not class.

Perhaps we should look to the Dylan module and library approach?
http://www.gwydiondylan.org/books/dpg/db_201.html



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


-------------------------------------------------------
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