> It really depends which audience this article is targetting...
I disagree. Low quality articles like this are part of the reason why many undergrads are full of strongly held opinions about things they don't know much about. They think you can dismiss a huge paradigm with a glib one-liner: "functions are not objects".
> Yes, but why have that definition, if you already have functions as builtin types?
Because we can't talk about objects without having a definition of what they are? I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm just trying to be clear about my terminology.
> Careful, the wording is a bit lacking here imho: you join two different ideas and make it seem like the second one validates the first, while it's not the case.
Think about it a little bit and you'll see why they are actually very related. His statement about Java is meant to imply that proper higher order functions and OOP are in opposition in some way (at least I assume that's his point, it's still not clear to me because that is obviously incorrect). I am saying that proper higher order functions alone are enough for a very pure form of OOP, so there is clearly no opposition.
> That shows you probably don't follow much the field. Anyway, this article doesn't fit your standard (see first point), ergo this man's whole work doesn't, ergo the whole field doesn't? That twice too much stretching from someone who isn't very careful in his own argumentation.
I'm going to ignore the digs at me and elaborate on what I meant. The author wrote an article about programming languages that was full of elementary errors, both in logic and in technical details. If he can't make a simple argument correctly, how am I supposed to have faith that his research isn't similarly full of errors? It's easy to disguise sloppy thinking in technical writing.
I disagree. Low quality articles like this are part of the reason why many undergrads are full of strongly held opinions about things they don't know much about. They think you can dismiss a huge paradigm with a glib one-liner: "functions are not objects".
> Yes, but why have that definition, if you already have functions as builtin types?
Because we can't talk about objects without having a definition of what they are? I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm just trying to be clear about my terminology.
> Careful, the wording is a bit lacking here imho: you join two different ideas and make it seem like the second one validates the first, while it's not the case.
Think about it a little bit and you'll see why they are actually very related. His statement about Java is meant to imply that proper higher order functions and OOP are in opposition in some way (at least I assume that's his point, it's still not clear to me because that is obviously incorrect). I am saying that proper higher order functions alone are enough for a very pure form of OOP, so there is clearly no opposition.
> That shows you probably don't follow much the field. Anyway, this article doesn't fit your standard (see first point), ergo this man's whole work doesn't, ergo the whole field doesn't? That twice too much stretching from someone who isn't very careful in his own argumentation.
I'm going to ignore the digs at me and elaborate on what I meant. The author wrote an article about programming languages that was full of elementary errors, both in logic and in technical details. If he can't make a simple argument correctly, how am I supposed to have faith that his research isn't similarly full of errors? It's easy to disguise sloppy thinking in technical writing.