On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Eddy Cizeron <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry I have not made myself clear enough. My point is absolulety not say > that inheritance is a good/bad/required/unnecessary feature. My point is > that if you're not using it (or at least if you're not using dynamic > linkage), I cannot see where or why OOP concepts and syntax are relevant > anymore. (But apparently there are some attempts to use dynamic linkage with > interfaces and I didn't know that).
One minor non-semantic, non-scientific benefit of OOP syntax over Algol-style function application syntax is that it's syntactically more composable—compare `a.foo().bar().bas()`, which reads left-to-right and composes to the right, to `bas(bar(foo(a)))`, which reads inside-out and requires bracketing on both sides of an inner experssion to compose calls. (Of course this only works if your APIs are designed up front in a "fluent" way, and isn't quite as flexible as what you can do with combinators in ML or Haskell.) -Joe _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
