Comments on: Functions as arguements http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/ The journal of Paul M. Watson Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:33:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-beta1 hourly 1 By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-8656 Shog9 Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:21:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-8656 What's even better is that you can <i>return</i> functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates). What’s even better is that you can return functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates).

]]> By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-10129 Shog9 Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:21:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-10129 What's even better is that you can <i>return</i> functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates). What’s even better is that you can return functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates).

]]> By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-11036 Shog9 Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:21:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-11036 What's even better is that you can <i>return</i> functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates). What’s even better is that you can return functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates).

]]> By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-15101 Shog9 Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:21:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-15101 What's even better is that you can <i>return</i> functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates). What’s even better is that you can return functions. Combined with closures, this results (for me) in a huge reduction in the need for big class hierarchies of simple classes, and drastically reduced the sort of cruft and namespace pollution that made me hate C++ so many years ago (a hatred that only diminished when i learned about templates).

]]> By: Justin Mason http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-8655 Justin Mason Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:23:04 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-8655 hi Paul --<br><br>This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.<br><br>some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow "closures". You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it's truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability. hi Paul –

This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.

some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow “closures”. You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it’s truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability.

]]> By: Justin Mason http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-10128 Justin Mason Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:23:04 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-10128 hi Paul --<br><br>This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.<br><br>some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow "closures". You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it's truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability. hi Paul –

This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.

some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow “closures”. You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it’s truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability.

]]> By: Justin Mason http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-11035 Justin Mason Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:23:04 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-11035 hi Paul --<br><br>This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.<br><br>some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow "closures". You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it's truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability. hi Paul –

This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.

some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow “closures”. You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it’s truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability.

]]> By: Justin Mason http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-15100 Justin Mason Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:23:04 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-15100 hi Paul --<br><br>This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.<br><br>some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow "closures". You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it's truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability. hi Paul –

This is a reasonably common feature in dynamic languages like Perl, Python and Ruby.

some of the things it allows are mindblowing; it gets even better when variable scoping is modified to allow “closures”. You know the java pattern whereby you need to define an interface to receive a callback, then callers need to define instances of that interface etc. etc.? That becomes a single line of code in perl ;) it’s truly beautiful in terms of simplification and readability.

]]> By: Brian Delahunty http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-8654 Brian Delahunty Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:06:07 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-8654 You can do that is C++ using function pointers and it's the same as Delegates in C#... you can pass a function into a function as a paramater and it can then call it etc.<br><br>I think Java has something similar. You can do that is C++ using function pointers and it’s the same as Delegates in C#… you can pass a function into a function as a paramater and it can then call it etc.

I think Java has something similar.

]]> By: Brian Delahunty http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/comment-page-1/#comment-10127 Brian Delahunty Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:06:07 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/07/28/functions-as-arguements/#comment-10127 You can do that is C++ using function pointers and it's the same as Delegates in C#... you can pass a function into a function as a paramater and it can then call it etc.<br><br>I think Java has something similar. You can do that is C++ using function pointers and it’s the same as Delegates in C#… you can pass a function into a function as a paramater and it can then call it etc.

I think Java has something similar.

]]>