Erlang hints from an CO junkie

Thomas Lindgren <>
Thu Aug 12 17:36:29 CEST 2004


--- Vlad Balin <> wrote:
[Joe:]
> >    As for the idea of bundling together data
> structures and methods into
> > the same unit of abstract and calling this an
> object is even sillier.
...
[Vlad:]
> Second, you (I guess) consider using of Erlang
> behaviours as good practice.
> This is another example of abstract data types
> application.
> 
> And third, Erlang standard library contains a lot of
> examples of binding
> 'methods' and
> 'structures' together. queue, gbtree, sets, etc.

But abstract datatypes =/= objects. Objects have
state, identity and associated methods, while ADTs are
collections of functions that operate on and
encapsulate concrete data (and where the
implementation perhaps satisfies some laws formulated
on the ADT).

Certainly objects and ADTs do share some properties,
such as encapsulation; this is not so strange, because
these are desirable properties for structuring
software. But that doesn't make the two techniques the
same.

Best,
Thomas



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list