Hacker News Reader

Isn't your point 2 exactly what OP said?

> I think it’s more interesting to think of the GoF-language as mimicking HOFs with the strategy pattern facsimile. The strategy pattern reimplements HOFs as a code-level idiom.

View on HN

No more than HOFs are mimicking objects.

It's two schools of thought - everything is functions & data, or everything is objects & methods.

Closures are implemented as objects under the skin, but that doesn't make them equivalent conceptually to me. I suppose it's down to syntax, after all if you ignore that you can have anything you like in assembler, but it won't feel very high level.

Closures are a poor man’s objects. Objects are a poor man’s closures.

What's the "poor man's" stuff? Is there a better way I don't know of

https://wiki.c2.com/?ClosuresAndObjectsAreEquivalent

Comes from that koan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com