Structs (was RE: Record selectors)
Wed Jan 15 09:05:39 CET 2003
Chris Pressey writes:
> Forgive me, but is Erlang really so object-shy that encapsulation is
> something that we feel we can afford to avoid simply because "they" have
> turned it into a meaningless buzzword?
If you have a language feature and call it an "object", then a large
number of people are going to be vocally disappointed that these
"objects" don't have member functions, inheritance, access control and...
What is an object? Asking google, I get
An object has state, behavior, and identity; the structure and
behavior of similar objects are defined in their common class; the
terms instance and object are interchangeable
This is what Booch says. Does behaviour mean "functions with side
effects"? What does Rumbaugh have to say?
We define an object as a concept, abstraction or thing with crisp
boundaries and meaning for the problem at hand.
Pretty vague, despite the wishful inclusion of "crisp". 'Object' is a
word to avoid. Now, if only I could invent a record replacement I
could give it a new and cool name, like "mutable coagulator".
More information about the erlang-questions