On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Warren Lynn <wrn.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > As difficult as you can see why I keep coming up crazy OO-like proposals, I > am also puzzled by the seemingly OO-phobia in the community.
I don't think it is "OO-phobia". I think a lot of people here have used (several) OO languages and just find the FP way better - or at least better for the problems they are solving. > Also, the proposal here is not "FP vs imperative". The created object is > still immutable, and does not violate any FP principles. > > As of going through FP, after some time, I started see certain benefits of > FP, but I see nothing saying FP cannot use some ideas in OO. The question here seems to be whether integrating the factory function into the record itself brings sufficient benefits to change the language - or whether the record concept and the factory concept should remain separate. It seems to me that the latter approach is simpler: two distinct concepts that can be combined if needed or used separately if desired. One of Clojure's design goals is simplicity. Keeping functions and data separate seems in keeping with that. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
