>>6 I don't understand what's the point of making an object without defining a class.
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 12:09
>>9 then you should learn (idiomatic) Smalltalk, Erlang, CLOS, Self, Objective C or Lua. you could also learn old-style JS (before they added classes) but that's arguably the wrong way of doing classless OOP
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 12:12
prototype-based dubs
Name:
not >>92018-02-22 12:17
>>10 Anything you'd recommend, especially for Smalltalk or CLOS?
>>10 So you're saying that there's no real difference. It's just your opinion that you don't like the idea of defining classes and instantiating objects based on those classes.
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 12:34
>>12 I dunno what's the best way to start with CLOS (Common Lisp in general is not beginner friendly) but as far as Smalltalk goes I'd just download Pharo Smalltalk and play around with it. also, >>14 might be a SICP-reductivist but he has a point. read SICP
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 15:17
The reason that I suggest Scheme if you want to use an OO language is because: 1: With macros you can easily make a fancy class syntax and whatever. 2: Scheme is great for use with message passing, SICP has a whole chapter on that. 3: Message passing lets you create both pure and impure objects. 4: It will open your mind in general and teach you how to properly use 1st order functions.
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 17:31
>>17 stupid shit instead of implementing a broken half-assed object system in a useless language you can just use a language with a functional one (like c++) and make a real program
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 18:30
test
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 18:36
>>18 these types of people are not interested in making programs. they want to autofellate over their clever code that no one, even themselves a couple days later, will ever use.
Name:
Anonymous2018-02-22 18:53
>>18 You might as well program in Scratch if you are not interested in learning.