[swift-users] swift-users Digest, Vol 3, Issue 15
danielt1263 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 15 12:16:02 CST 2016
I have to say John that I am not a fan of your OOP code. I would have written the OOP code very much like you wrote the POP version using the Strategy pattern.
| | |
[Land] [Sea] [Air]
(View the above with a mono-spaced font.)
In essence, I see no difference. There may be a difference, but I don’t think your example presents one.
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 1:00 PM, swift-users-request at swift.org wrote:
> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:59:05 -0500
> From: Jon Hoffman <hoffman.jon at gmail.com>
> To: swift-users <swift-users at swift.org>
> Subject: [swift-users] Comparing POP to OOP
> Message-ID: <5DA5F8F5-D645-4BF9-A0CE-1AF1DB8B3735 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Numerous tutorials that I have seen take a very Object-Oriented approach to the protocol-oriented programming (POP) paradigm. By this statement I mean that they tell us that with POP we should begin our design with the protocol rather than with the superclass as we did with OOP however the protocol design tends to mirror the superclass design of OOP. They also tell us that we should use extensions to add common functionality to types that conform to a protocol as we did with superclasses in OOP. While protocols and protocol extensions are arguably two of the most important concepts of POP these tutorials seem to be missing some other very important concepts.
> In this post I would like to compare Protocol-Oriented design to Object-Oriented design to highlight some of the conceptual differences. You can view the blog post here: http://masteringswift.blogspot.com/2016/02/pop-and-oop.html <http://masteringswift.blogspot.com/2016/02/pop-and-oop.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-users