Real Object Oriented Programmers

Real ObjectOriented programmers

Re: Eschew static type checking

I don't know, there seems to be a TypeWeenie? kind that views OO as an extension of type theory and ADT's.

See FunctionalWeenie

I don't see functional and static-typing heavily bound.

Now, now... let's not inject reality into a page like this. :) If we exclude the set of SmugLispWeenies from the set of FunctionalWeenies (most of the LISPers only attend services at the church of Church on Christmas and Easter Sunday, and the rest of the time doing obscene and unholy things like setq and rplaca), we have left the MlWeenie?s and the HaskellWeenie?s--both statically typed languages. And both languages have a large subset of the respective communities who are positively in love with the various TypeInference systems that they have been created.

Save for BertrandMeyer (OK, and LucaCardelli, and BenjaminPierce and KimBruce?, etc.), the OO community seems to gravitate towards either DynamicTyping (Smalltalk, Python) or ManifestTyping (C++, Java)

But enough blatant generalizations, overly-broad stereotypes, and other assorted nonsense for an evening. :)

* Eschew public/protected/private distinctions (again, this is a feature for idiots).: Not true! Any Real Object Oriented Programmer loves these tags.

Many RealObjectOrientedProgrammers believe any object should respond to any message sent from any client at any time. Any time you make a method private, it's because you're too lazy or stupid to make it a usable public method.

This really is just a RealSmallTalkProgrammer? page, as already pointed out. And anyway IoLanguage and SelfLanguage are more OO than ST.
See also RealProgrammer, SmugSmalltalkWeenies, ObjectWeenie

EditText of this page (last edited May 9, 2005) or FindPage with title or text search