What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities

[Jon Harrop]

Xah Lee wrote:
> As part of this new syntax and purity, where everything in a program
> is of Classes and Objects and Methods, many complex issues and concept
> have arisen in OOP from both the OOP language machinery as well as a
> engineering practice.

I think the fact that many design patterns from OOP are redundant in the
presence of functional programming is very interesting. I'd like to see
more written about this, not least because it would serve as an excellent
introduction to functional programming for the majority of programmers who
are versed only in object orientation (primarily C++, Java and C#
programmers).

There is an old paper on the GOF's OOP design patterns implemented in OCaml
but it was not written by OCaml-savvy programmers and contained many errors
and omissions. Perhaps the Lisp community have generated something better?

Also, pattern matching is fundamental to many modern functional programming
languages. Here, pattern matching is often the only way to manipulate
concrete data structures and often results in code that is both faster and
more concise than any object-oriented equivalent. I recently gave the
example of a small symbolic simplifier written in OCaml/F# that is
difficult and tedious to translate into many other languages efficiently
(including C++, Java, C# and even Lisp).

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet