Re: warning missing

"Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote in message
news:87smcl7fdj(dot)fsf(at)stark(dot)xeocode(dot)com(dot)(dot)(dot)
>
> Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> writes:
>
> > Try to use a similar construct in a more elaborate OO-language (like
Java, C#,
> > etc.) and you will get an error like:
>
> Just as a point of reference, Java and C# are not "more elaborate" object
> systems. For Java at least being *less* elaborate was an explicit design
goal.
>
I mean more elaborate from a n OO semantics standpoint. I.e. it enforces OO
much more, provides better data hiding, the ability to use interfaces (and
thereby enforce interface/implementation separation), package protection,
etc. etc.

To elaborate something doesn't necessarily mean adding more kludges to a
language.

> The designers thought C++ had too many features and gave programmers too
much
> rope to hang themselves. They thought by removing major OO features that
> confuse people the resulting language would be 90% as functional with 10%
of
> the problems.
>
> If you want a *more* elaborate OO language than C++ you would have to go
to,
> say, Common Lisp. But I doubt it would support your argument.
>
I'm not an expert on Common Lisp but I think it would. At least if you'd use
CLOS and defclass. There's no way to hide readers/writers/accessors that you
inherit.

From an OO semantics point of view, I still regard Java and C# much more
elaborate than both C++ and Common Lisp. The latter lacks interfaces and
different levels of protection.

Kind regards,

Thomas Hallgren