If I could get it for a (typed) BSL/ISL language, I'd be happy. It's not that
bad there and yes, I am willing to overlook the HO character of the language.
On May 4, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Joe Marshall wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. syntax: OOP guys write down the first argument first (this) and then the
>> method call and that is the way syntax works.
>
> Yes, but they give up the ability to have first-class methods. The
> method name is selected
> from the scope of the object, not from the lexical environment. There
> is no way to write
>
> applyToAutomobile (Method action) {
> return myAutomobile.action();
> }
>
> (of course you could use reflection, heh heh)
>
> In addition, there's a level of kludginess that they put up with in
> order to bootstrap
> themselves into the object world. (No first-class constructor methods,
> so `factories'
> have to be introduced.) In FP, given an arbitrary variable like
> `aList', there are a million
> constructor functions that could operate on it: cons, list, make-foo,
> alist->hash-table,
> etc. If first-class functions were eliminated from functional
> programming, it would be
> pretty easy to auto-complete, too.
>
>>
>> Is it really hopeless for us? -- Matthias
>
> Yeah. We're saddled with a language that permits us to name nearly anything.
> Perhaps we need a less powerful paradigm.
>
> --
> ~jrm
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
