@monorail everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if their opinion is wrong

@monorail I like functional, but I choose to defer that potential branch of evaluation

@monorail it's good

most object-oriented languages are disappointing (why do they all use classes rather than prototypes) but the concept be good

@LottieVixen @monorail prototypes are just a fundamentally simpler way to structure objects

in your typical classical oo model, you have objects containing attributes, and those objects have a class which contains the methods you can perform on the object

it starts getting complicated when you think through more advanced features: do static attributes also live on the class? does that make it an object? where do static methods live that differentiates them from instance methods? what if you want to put custom methods on a particular object? where do traits fit into the hierarchy? etc.

ruby is classical and addresses those needs, but it does so by giving every object a hidden additional class called an "eigenclass". static and object-specific methods live in secret eigenclasses. it's weird

you can avoid that complexity by eliminating classes entirely. instead, you just have objects, and they have attributes. you don't need a separate structure to hold methods, because an attribute can trivially just contain a method. each object can be designated one or more prototypes, which simply means that if you can't find an attribute on an object, you check if the prototypes have it. that's it

base classes? prototypes. traits? also prototypes. statics? just live on a "class" object instead of an "instance" object. easy.

@00dani @LottieVixen that seems interesting theoretically but not useful practically

like you can argue about whether a class is itself an object but like. it works

maybe i'm misunderstanding but it seems like a more theoretically elegant and less practically useful approach

@monorail @LottieVixen it's more theoretically elegant and more practically useful in my experience? prototypal oo can trivially replicate classical oo yet is far more flexible in practice

for instance: you're guaranteed to be able to pass constructors around as parameters, so you don't need to define factories that more-or-less exist to wrap up constructors in objects? some classical languages do treat classes as objects anyway and also achieve this benefit, but many don't

additionally, one-off flyweight objects are super useful. take a look through pretty much any substantial amount of javascript and you'll find loads of them

even without multiple inheritance (which is sadly something js lacks), traits still work out fine since you can treat them as a pile of object-specific methods. obviously it's nicer if you can just use the trait itself as an additional prototype ofc, but the flexibility of prototypal oo means it's still possible without that option :blobcatblep:​

overall there's really no functional disadvantage to using a prototypal model, it's conceptually simpler, and the flexibility is often valuable, so :blobcatgooglyshrug:​

@00dani @LottieVixen I'm unconvinced about it being conceptually simpler because you just explained it to me and i still don't get it

@monorail @00dani part of a flywheel? heck okay that's a wall of text im not awake enough for (checked dani's response)

@monorail @LottieVixen uh. that would be me misusing terminology apparently :ohno:​

i meant a little one-off object used in a specific situation, such that an explicit class definition might be overkill. the kinds of things that js code uses all over the place?

@00dani @monorail i use class definitions for everything because it just makes finding things easier to me. but I'll have to cover this when I'm more awake.

@monorail @LottieVixen yep, that's exactly the thing i'm talking about :blobcat: objects are essentially just named tuples with lambdas in them, and prototypal oo pretty much leans into that

@00dani @LottieVixen so if i made a named tuple with lambdas in it where they're useful and defined classes where they're useful, i'm pretty much good then?

@monorail @LottieVixen yeah, totally

python's object model is actually pretty complex though (metaclasses are. a thing here too?)

tangent and bleh bit negative re prototype discussion

 

tangent and bleh bit negative re prototype discussion

 

re: tangent and bleh bit negative re prototype discussion

 

@LottieVixen @00dani a tuple is a collection of stuff. it's like a list that doesn't do as much, so it's simpler

a lambda is basically a function literal

in python, these two lines of code do (basically) the same thing

def f(x): return x*2
f = lambda x: x*2

@LottieVixen @monorail a named tuple is a python-specific thing which is basically like a struct or a javascript object

a lambda is another term for an anonymous function, since the idea of anonymous functions originated in lambda calculus. many languages, python included, actually use the keyword lambda to denote one

@monorail i view oop as orthogonal to imperative/functional since they can totally coexist

especially since an object is literally just a function with a dispatcher

Sign in to participate in the conversation
glaceon.social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!