Mike Meyer wrote: > "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming > languages as he is of Python and Perl.
I think you're misreading some of what is being said. > Nested subroutines date back to Algol, which was first specified in > the 50s. I think the author was speaking in terms of how high a level of a language it is, not necessarily how recent it is. > Actually, classes and other OO concepts come out of simulation programming, > not as an outgrowth of nested functions. Most of the features one > associates with OO languages were present in Simula. Again, I think the author was pointing out that it is an outgrowth logically, not necessarily historically. There is a basic equivalence between a class and a group of functions closed over the same variables. I mention something similar in an IBM DeveloperWorks article here: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-highfunc.html > Function nesting and classes were viewed as independent features. Some > OO languages support nesting, others don't. I think it was Grace Murray > Hopper commenting on Ada who said that "With classes, nesting is for the > birds." Doesn't this quote show the opposite? > Strictly speaking, this isn't true of *any* language. Even the most > fanatical of languages distinguish between classes, objects and > methods. I think the point was that in Java everything is done within the context of a class. You can define methods, but only as a part of a class. You cannot define a function or even a variable that stands on its own. > But IIRC, Java comes with a set of low-level types that don't have > classes associated with them. But still, it does not allow you, the programmer, to do the same. Jon ---- Learn to program using Linux assembly language http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
