On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 10:20:57 UTC, Chris wrote:
This is only losely related to D, but I don't fully understand
the separation of component programming and OOP (cf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component-based_software_engineering#Differences_from_object-oriented_programming).
In an OO framwork, the objects are basically components. See
also
"Brad Cox of Stepstone largely defined the modern concept of a
software component.[4] He called them Software ICs and set out
to create an infrastructure and market for these components by
inventing the Objective-C programming language." (see link
above)
Walter's example
(http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/component-programming-in-d/240008321)
void main() {
stdin.byLine(KeepTerminator.yes) // 1
map!(a => a.idup). // 2
array. // 3
sort. // 4
copy( // 5
stdout.lockingTextWriter()); // 6
}
This is more or less how mature OO programs look like. Ideally
each class (component) does one thing (however small the class
might be) and can be used or called to perform this task. All
other classes or components can live independently. From my
experience this is exactly what Objective-C does. Rather than
subclassing, it uses other classes to get a job done.
A few days ago, there was a discussion about APL on HN [0]. What
we call Component Programming here, looks somewhat like the APL
style to me. Sure, APLers have a single weird symbol for stuff
like "sort.", but this chaining of powerful modular operations is
what APL seems to be all about.
The APL paradigm is not integrated into modern languages so far.
I am excited that it might make an introduction now. Compare for
example Functional Programming, which is integrated into most
mainstream languages by now. Or Logic Programming, which seems
not worthy enough to get its own syntax, but is available in the
business rules world with libraries and DSLs and its minor
brother Datalog is also still alive.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6115727
