On 26 December 2013 19:53, Massimiliano Tomassoli <kiuhn...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Why implicit? Objects communicate through well-defined channels. OOP can > certainly be misused but it served me well for over 20 years (C++/C#). And > Scala proves that FP and OOP are orthogonal paradigms. I can't see how the > lack of OOP is a good thing for Clojure, honestly. I'm willing to give up > mutability because I never programmed that way and I believe it can be a > good thing (after I get used to it), but giving up OOP means going back to > something I already know and I don't like. >
Clojure provides all the functionality of OOP, but separated into specialised tools. For grouping functions, we have namespaces. For polymorphism, we have multimethods and protocols. For encapsulation there are closures, and for inheritance we have the "derive" and "isa?" functions. I've worked with OOP systems for over a decade, but it wasn't until I started using Clojure that really started to understand the separate pieces of functionality that OOP bundles together. I found that there were some pieces I used regularly (such as namespaces), some pieces I used occasionally (polymorphism), and some pieces I didn't use at all (encapsulation and inheritance). Clojure emphasises "simplicity", which in this case means should aim for tools that perform specific tasks, rather than tools that attempt to tackle everything at once. This is why Clojure doesn't have OOP, because Clojure prefers having a diverse toolbox of individual tools, rather than a single generic tool that acts as a swiss army knife. Clojure also rejects the idea that we should hide data structures behind an API (i.e. encapsulation). This is the opposite of OOP doctrine, which suggests that data structures need to be hidden to prevent constant refactoring. In practise, I find I need to refactor *less* with Clojure, while at the same time avoiding the need to hide information, and the repetition that comes with having to re-implement part of the functionality of a map, every time I build an object. When I started using Clojure, I almost started on an OOP system for it. Within a few weeks, I began to understand that wasn't necessary. After 5 years, I'm very much sold on Clojure's methodology. I suspect I'm not alone in this, otherwise there would be at least a dozen OO systems for Clojure. To my knowledge, there are zero so far. - James -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
