On Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:30:16 PM UTC+1, Cedric Greevey wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Timothy Baldridge > <tbald...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Not mentioned in Cedric's post are two other important things: >> >> Protocols can be extended to existing types. >> > > These are important for the Expression Problem, but not for the OP's query > as originally stated, which simply asked for the contrast with overloading. > That contrast is dynamic vs. static dispatch. As for C++ being able to > solve the Expression Problem and thus being "equally powerful", well, both > languages are also Turing complete. But which will generally let you be > more expressive, with less ceremony and verbosity? Which has templates and > macros that are unhygienic and a bugbear to work with, and which has macros > that are very safe and clean? >
What I was saying was more subtle. If C++ can solve the Expression Problem the same way Clojure does, why do you say that Clojure's solution is acceptable whereas C++ programmers don't accept the same solution for C++? That's simple: external functions are not real methods. So we're accepting Clojure's solution because Clojure doesn't support real methods and objects, but we're rejecting the same solution in C++ because C++ *does* have real methods and objects. Isn't that absurd? -- -- 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.
