16 ms·
OO exists on top of the imperative paradigm, never the functional one. If you disagree, please define OO.
by ricky_clarkson 18y ago
OO exists on top of the imperative paradigm, never the functional one. If you disagree, please define OO.
- parenthesis 18y agoCommon Lisp is a multi-paradigm language, but its OO features can be used in a functional style.
- hassy 18y ago1. OO has no precise and universally accepted definition. http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html 2. Parameterized modules in Erlang can be seen as a form of lightweight functional OOP. http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/05/18/late-binding-with-erlang http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/05/18/late-binding-with-erla... http://www.erlang.se/workshop/2003/paper/p29-carlsson.pdf http://www.erlang.se/workshop/2003/paper/p29-carlsson.pdf
- jff 18y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System "Sweeping generalizations are always bad" :)
- likpok 18y agoFrom what I understand, CL is not a functional language. It can be used as such, but is not necessarily one.