"dsimcha" <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hhlsk7$2v0...@digitalmars.com... > == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article >> "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message >> news:hhgvqk$8c...@digitalmars.com... >> > An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype: >> > >> > http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html >> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is >> completely >> in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all programming paradigms, >> for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't pull a Java or (worse >> yet) >> a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything* into the paradigm. > > I actually think Smalltalk had the better idea. Java doesn't support any > paradigm > besides OO well, and neither does Smalltalk. The difference is that, in > Smalltalk, at least everything is an object, so you can do "pure" OO well. > Java > is "almost pure" OO, but it lack of ints, floats, etc. being objects, > combined > with its lack of support for any paradigm that works well without ints, > floats, > etc. being objects, makes the language feel like a massive kludge, and > leads to > debacles like autoboxing to get around this. > > In multiparadigm languages like D, C++ and C#, the lack of ints, floats, > etc. > being objects is less of an issue because, although it's a wart in the OO > system, > noone is forcing you to use the OO system for **everything**.
I certainly agree about Java and multiparadign languages, but I never understood how, for instance, making the "if" statement an object ever did anything but obfuscate Smalltalk and give people warm fuzzies for being uber-consistent.