<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Questioning OO</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.puredanger.com/index.php/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/</link>
	<description>Alex Miller&#039;s technical blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:39:50 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Follett</title>
		<link>http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/comment-page-1/#comment-245422</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Follett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.puredanger.com/?p=794#comment-245422</guid>
		<description>Any one paradigm will have its limitations.  Languages that can support multiple paradigms, even somewhat loosely, seem to be a better solution.  Alternatively, environments that support multiple languages of different paradigms being easily combined are another solution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any one paradigm will have its limitations.  Languages that can support multiple paradigms, even somewhat loosely, seem to be a better solution.  Alternatively, environments that support multiple languages of different paradigms being easily combined are another solution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Bay</title>
		<link>http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/comment-page-1/#comment-188707</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Bay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:51:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.puredanger.com/?p=794#comment-188707</guid>
		<description>I read this post and I found this quote from Joe Armstrong ( creator of Erlang ).. it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would share it.....

&quot;I think the lack of reusability comes in object-oriented languages, not in functional languages. Because the problem with object-oriented languages is they&#039;ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read this post and I found this quote from Joe Armstrong ( creator of Erlang ).. it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would share it&#8230;..</p>
<p>&#8220;I think the lack of reusability comes in object-oriented languages, not in functional languages. Because the problem with object-oriented languages is they&#8217;ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moandji Ezana</title>
		<link>http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/comment-page-1/#comment-186983</link>
		<dc:creator>Moandji Ezana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.puredanger.com/?p=794#comment-186983</guid>
		<description>@Tasos Zervos
Yeah, I hope modules turn out to be as useful as everyone is hoping they&#039;ll be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tasos Zervos<br />
Yeah, I hope modules turn out to be as useful as everyone is hoping they&#8217;ll be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tasos Zervos</title>
		<link>http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/comment-page-1/#comment-186769</link>
		<dc:creator>Tasos Zervos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.puredanger.com/?p=794#comment-186769</guid>
		<description>@Moandji Ezana
I believe this is a problem as any real-use component/library/etc. will comprise of multiple packages since many times packages are used to organise layers/sub-components/etc.
What we need is a higher level concept to packages. This is most likely &quot;module&quot;; coming with JSR294.
My understanding is that with this JSR a new access modifier will be added in the language - module.
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/language.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Moandji Ezana<br />
I believe this is a problem as any real-use component/library/etc. will comprise of multiple packages since many times packages are used to organise layers/sub-components/etc.<br />
What we need is a higher level concept to packages. This is most likely &#8220;module&#8221;; coming with JSR294.<br />
My understanding is that with this JSR a new access modifier will be added in the language &#8211; module.<br />
<a href="http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/language.html" rel="nofollow">http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/language.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moandji Ezana</title>
		<link>http://tech.puredanger.com/2010/02/25/questioning-oo/comment-page-1/#comment-186725</link>
		<dc:creator>Moandji Ezana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.puredanger.com/?p=794#comment-186725</guid>
		<description>@Ed Kirwan:

&quot;With the latter, indeed, I’d have some sympathy: a recent survey*** of Java projects on Sourceforge showed that most projects leave three classes public for every private class they define in a package.&quot;

Maybe package-private classes aren&#039;t used a lot because they&#039;re too restrictive. I try to use them as often as possible, but I often find myself wishing it were possible to make a class visible to its package and all subpackages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ed Kirwan:</p>
<p>&#8220;With the latter, indeed, I’d have some sympathy: a recent survey*** of Java projects on Sourceforge showed that most projects leave three classes public for every private class they define in a package.&#8221;</p>
<p>Maybe package-private classes aren&#8217;t used a lot because they&#8217;re too restrictive. I try to use them as often as possible, but I often find myself wishing it were possible to make a class visible to its package and all subpackages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

