Hi Dominikus, and thanks for sharing your valuable thought. I did not read the antiifcampaign, but I remember very well the number of ifs code lines were present in java window toolkit (1995), just because they did not add NullLayout class to polymorphically manage the absence of a layout manager. So I should say: I agree by principle.
Conditions and polymorphism are orthogonal each other, at least with an OO approach. Less ifs you have, more clear is your model. No ifs, and you reach the perfection of a model. But the perfection is not pragmatic. Few ifs, its human. No if its divine. And I'm little bit less than human, so I prefere to stay with few ifs. Anyway, very nice post. Mimmo On Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:57:47 AM UTC+2, Dominikus wrote: > > Three weeks ago I stumbled across the Anti-If Campaign ( > http://www.antiifcampaign.com/). > > An instant later I realized that one could easily re-implement "if" in > Clojure with maps. More interestingly, polymorphic functions can be easily > motivated with the help of maps. And this naturally leads to multimethods. > > If you like, enjoy reading my blogpost on "The root of polymorphism: The > Anti-If Campaign". It might be an interesting read for Clojure enthusiasts. > > > http://denkspuren.blogspot.de/2012/05/root-of-polymorphism-anti-if-campaign.html > > > Cheers, > > Dominikus > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
