> I'm puzzled when we say that Clojure is not particularly OO, but using > protocols and datatypes feel OO to me, > except that the namespace of the protocol method implementations is > decoupled from the namespace of the type. > > Perhaps my definition of OO is too loose and I should think of > protocols as "just" abstraction & polymorphism.
People have to stop thinking FP vs OO. Its imperativ vs functional. You could have a language like smalltalk but fully functional. FP: First class function, closures, imutability, pure functions OO: polymorphism, encapsulation, inheritance Do any of these exclude each other? No, not really. Clojure is OO in some sence but thats just not the what most people mean by OO nowdays, so we don't say clojure is OO and Clojure sais don't use this stuff until you really need it try using "normal" FP first. -- 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
