On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Dave Ford <df...@smart-soft.com> wrote:
> A lot of my early work was centered around UIs which made heavy use of >> inheritance and mutation. >> > I really don't think this is related to the original question. The > original question was not about inheritance or mutation or even about OO. > It was about "this" and "combining data with logic". Which were described > as a "systemic problem". > > No one (yet) has convinced me that they are even remotely a problem. No > one has provided an example. Or any logic to support the claim. > I think the added complexity to the language that you mentioned qualifies as a problem. ;) > The fact that "this" has nothing to do with immutability is unrelated to > my experience. Most programming languages that have a "this" construct allow mutation. This is what you have to take into account when discussing this. The very idea of OOP is that you have independent objects that communicate through messages. This means that you send an object a message and it mutates its state (if need be). This mutation is achieved through the use of this/self or a similar concept. You cannot simply ignore this historical reality. Sure, we can have a fully immutable object system but this is not commonly encountered. If Kotlin has something like this it is an exception not part of the rule. Once we acknowledge the issue of mutability we can move the discussion forward and analyze the benefits of having data and behavior together in the context of immutability. I too would love to see an argument against having the data and logic together in the context of immutability. -- There is NO FATE, we are the creators. blog: http://damoc.ro/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
