Aspect oriented programming: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
m (J: dada) |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
However, the claims that "[i]t turned out that the pointcut functionality of AspectL does not make a lot of sense in Common Lisp, and the support for dynamically scoped generic functions has been replaced with much better mechanisms in [[http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/contextl.html ContextL]]." |
However, the claims that "[i]t turned out that the pointcut functionality of AspectL does not make a lot of sense in Common Lisp, and the support for dynamically scoped generic functions has been replaced with much better mechanisms in [[http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/contextl.html ContextL]]." |
||
=={{header|J}}== |
|||
In as much as I am unable to see the differences between functional programming and aspect oriented programming (they are just that stealthy, from my point of view), I'll have to say that J is as aspect oriented as the capabilities of the programmer. |
|||
=={{header|JavaScript}}== |
=={{header|JavaScript}}== |
||
Bemson's [https://github.com/bemson/Flow/wiki/ Flow library] introduces an aspect-like framework for JavaScript. |
Bemson's [https://github.com/bemson/Flow/wiki/ Flow library] introduces an aspect-like framework for JavaScript. |
||
=={{header|Scala}}== |
=={{header|Scala}}== |
||