Collection interfaces (Was: New to OO concepts - re-usability)

[James A. Robertson]

Topmind wrote:
> 

> > > You mean something like SQL or ODBC?
> >
> > No, I mean collections, as with, say, the Smalltalk collection classes.
> >
> 
> Smalltalk uses collection taxonomies, which I frown on.
> Collection needs change, morph, and grow. If you tie your
> application to a specific "type", then the chances of
> getting screwed are high IME.
> 

You can mix and match Smalltalk collections (and have been able to for
decades).  You might try downloading one of the free or cheap Smalltalks
and looking for yourself.


> If Smalltalk wants to rewrite them so features can be
> mixed and match as needed, instead of based on an limiting
> taxonomy, that would be great. (I am working on
> my version of such a spec, BTW.)
> 
> OO thinking is taxonomy-happy. I see it in collections,
> streams, and GUI's. One can have many more variations if
> you treat features as indepedent. Sure, not all combinations
> are valid, but the pattern of invalidity is not a
> tree pattern for the most part.
> 
> > > And, this crap that only OO can do implimentation-hiding interfaces is
> > > pure propaganda.
> >
> > It is possible to hide the implementation behind any procedure. But
> > it requires some kind of OO mechanism to be polymorphic. That
> > is what OO is, by definition.
> >
> 
> Whatever. It is not much difference to the user of such API's, mostly a
> matter of verb position.
> 
> x.movenext
> movenext(x)
> 
> tamato
> tamato
> 
> > --
> > Patrick Logan
> > mailto:patrickdlogan at home.com
> >
> >
> 
> -tmind-

-- 
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jarober at mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>