Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!olivea!news.hal.COM!decwrl!adobe!macb022.mv.us.adobe.com!user
From: mhamburg@mv.us.adobe.com (Mark Hamburg)
Subject: Re: OO vs Generics (Re: dylan)
Message-ID: <mhamburg-231194081110@macb022.mv.us.adobe.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.dylan
Sender: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Inc.
References: <patrick_d_logan.179.000B818F@ccm.jf.intel.com> <3ahkso$nee@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <patrick_d_logan.227.000F853B@ccm.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 16:11:10 GMT
Lines: 14

To the OO faithful who argue that a function can always be associated
primarily with a single object, I would suggest that you look at the code
it takes to build a doubly-linked list.  The code to establish the link
needs to modify TWO objects.  In a language like SmallTalk, this results in
ugly little utility methods that exist purely because one of the objects
needs to tell the other one to establish or break a one directional link.

Mark

P.S. You don't need multi-methods to solve this particular example, and I
remain dubious about whether their benefit justifies their added
implementational complexity.  I have raised this because I disagree with
the view point that politically correct -- oops I mean OO -- code should
tightly couple operations to single objects.
