Julia fuck 12 02 2014
This distinction is arbitrary; Julia itself makes no distinction between these two types. There are a number of different options for this within Julia’s syntax, but the style used here is the most familiar to me.
Constructors in Julia differ from the PHP-esque style of constructors, which exist within an instance of an object and are executed immediately after the instance has been created.
It may be too early to say, but at this stage it appears that Julia may be lacking the necessary features for effective use of traditional OOP development patterns – though that doesn’t necessarily mean that the language itself or its implementation of objects is broken.
Okay, I still do, but lately it's a love/hate kind of a relationship.
The same applies to defining default values for properties.
As an example, below is the current version of the Response class from my experimental web framework.
In Julia, constructors are responsible for the actual creation of an instance, as you’ll see below.
This code is where the instance of the object is created and assigned to a “this” variable.
However, it’s possible to define a single function within the object’s type definition that will act as the object’s constructor.Therefore, everything is public – and even methods can be overwritten if new functions are assigned to their respective properties.Also, as methods don’t “belong” to the object, it may not be possible to reproduce the behaviour of inheritance as in other languages (getting my head around Julia’s inheritance will be part 2).If you’re familiar with C, objects in Julia can be thought of as C structs with the addition of a constructor.Having read through the docs and existing Julia source code, it seems that the way to encapsulate functionality within a Julia object is to assign functions manually – ideally (but not necessarily) from within the constructor – to properties within the object.