Re: Structure of complex ex-OOP programs
1) would be more:
- define a protocol for each kind of function (render, serialize...)
- define a deftype/defrecord for each type of element, and make them extend
the protocol
It's not that different from 2. (protocol, as far as I understand, are
multimethod whose dispatch function is the type of first arg)
More choice:
3)
(defn render rendering
[obj context]
(case (:shape obj)
:line (render-line obj context)
.
)
with obj being a PersistentHashMap {:shape :line :begin {:x :y} ...}
The right choice depends somehow of taste.
I would do for 1, but other would do differently I think.
Good thing with a multi-paradigm language.
--
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
Re: Structure of complex ex-OOP programs
1. would be my favorite too. Multimethods are fine too, but may be a bit slow. 3. is the same as 2. while avoiding multimethods. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Nicolas Oury nicolas.o...@gmail.com wrote: I would do for 1, but other would do differently I think. Good thing with a multi-paradigm language. -- Moritz Ulrich Programmer, Student, Almost normal Guy http://www.google.com/profiles/ulrich.moritz -- 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
Re: Structure of complex ex-OOP programs
On Jul 12, 1:26 pm, Nicolas Oury nicolas.o...@gmail.com wrote: The right choice depends somehow of taste. chipping in two cents: try to predict what kinds of change your system needs to support, and use that to help choose a style. (a) fp style: easy to add new operations on a fixed set of data types. (cf. pattern matching styles in ocaml, haskell, etc.) (b) oo style: easy to add new data types implementing a fixed set of operations. (c) in between style: something that purports to cut the gordian knot in the expression problem? typeclasses? multimethods? whatever crazy stuff scala does? or something else besides? sincerely. -- 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
