Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCAML Downcasting?

[Brian Hurt <bhurt@spnz.org>]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Richard Jones wrote:

> But the OCaml assumption here is that you program is one big
> monolithic entity, for which you have source (and are recompiling) all
> parts.  This goes against the OO theory of "reuse" - particularly of
> reuse of binary classes, which I don't think I've ever actually used
> in practice anyway.

Note that OO resuse is not the only theory of reuse possible.  Partial 
function application, higher order functions, modules and functors, 
universal types ('a), etc. also allow incredible code reuse, without 
touching objects.  In OO program, the object or class is the building 
block of reuse- in functional programming, it's the function.

If all you know is hammers, a cresent wrench is seen as a badly designed 
hammer.

-- 
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 
Brian

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners