[Tutor] What's pure OO? [was Re: Why do I not get an error when I mistakenly type ...]

[Alan Gauld]

On 25/01/16 15:02, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 08:30:48PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> 
>> That is the pure OO way; 
> 
> Is this the room for an argument? I'd like the full half hour please.

Personally I see OOP as a style thing rather than a language
issue. And I do think there is some sort of a "pure" definition
in all the object model theory papers that abound on the subject
in CS departments around the planet. (But that still leaves a
lot of wriggle room due to differences in opinion among the gurus)

But like most "pure" approaches it's thoroughly impractical in
isolation. As a result no pure OOP language exists because
it would be unusable. (Just like with pure FP, another case
where cries of purity are rife.)

OTOH striving towards purity is no bad thing. There is usually
a good reason lurking in the background. Otherwise we'd all
still be programming with goto and globals and variable names
like A$... But structured programming too has its
purists... remember single exit points anyone? (Actually F#
does insist on those!)

-- 
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld
Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos