🚀 go-pugleaf

>> Functions as first class objects

> Functions as first class objects?
>Object oriented supesedes functional and procedural  styles.  Mixing the
>two just leads to confusion and dilutes the purity of 
>an object oriented language.

Depends on what they mean by "style". What is functional style? Or
procedural style for that matter? (Anything who thinks its obvious, feel
free to try. For a joke, how about it posting it here?)

To make a stupid point (but one that caused an old-time programmer
collegue's aha), OOP is just procedural code organized a little
differently. At the lowest level, its nothing but procedural code.
Procedural code makes the world go 'round.

The point of the earlier comment about Functions as first-class objects.
is that Functions are as much objects as anything else. It is utterly
true. If you don't think so, then you're a programmer who's never done any
mathematical OOP. If that is retro, then tough, because a lot of the baby
got thrown out with the bathwater when OOP hype arrived. The old ways of
programming can still teach us a great deal, perhaps especially OOP
experts. The best answers lie out beyond the first level of OOP theory
(objects have properties and behavior) into total gonzo OOP (everything is
an object, and really mean it)

So to turn it around, OOP has a great deal of use being applied back to
procedural or functional or constraint-based styles. What is an "agent"
but a procedural code with memory? Or is this all just a semantic
confusion of terms (a redundant phrase if I ever said one)?