> > Yes it is... emails was not the best example in this case.. think the > "area" example instead as this is single value rather than collection. >
Well, I thought we've already came to the agreement that area is a (polymorphic) function and it has nothing to do with structure of your data, no? > Lazy sequences also introduce additional problems... they maybe "realized" > when bindings are no longer in effect which causes all sorts of non-local > errors with stacktraces that are completely non-intuitive. > Use bound-fn and similar tools to preserve the context. Use contract programming <https://github.com/dnaumov/clojure-contracts> to get rid of ugly stacktraces :) Anyway, these are other problems not related to the topic. Yes, always access a map value via a function, this provides a "seam" (see > Feathers, Working Effectively with Legacy Code > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=359417) where alternative > behavior could be introduced. Keywords are functions, but their behavior > cannot changed therefore they do not make for useful seams. The data still > needs to be stored some where so you will have maps and will still need to > use keywords to access that data... > Well, "accessing a map value via a function" is what object-oriented programming is about. So your concern is about the fact that clojure isn't object-oriented? I thought you was talking about using functions to model all other data structures, which is a good idea in theory, but is not very practical. but that keyword usage should be in only one place so that when you do > change the data structure eventually you will need to only update that one > function. > Changing data structure == changing API. If you change an interface in Java how many updates you'd have to do? I disagree. I don't think OO has failed us...MOST software is written in > OO languages. > A million lemmings can't be wrong. Sure. > Lisp and various functional languages are much older than OO, yet were not > widely adopted for commercial use. > That's not true - they were. > I'm not saying OO is perfect or that there is no room for improvement, > thats why I tried clojure in the first place, but perhaps OO has been far > more successful then you give it credit for and certainly more successful > in practice then these so called "academic" languages. > Java is successful for commercial reasons, not because it's the best language ever written. -- 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
