On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Ive been collecting material regarding (confusions around) OO. Its far > from complete but the references may be useful, eg > - the Rees list on the different things that OO means to different people > - the fundamental philosophical differences between commitment to > declarativeness and imperativeness -- in philosophical language rationalism > and empiricism > > As I said, its still in the early stage of bits and pieces being > collected... > http://blog.languager.org/2012/07/we-dont-need-no-ooooo-orientation-2.html > > * If so, where should I start? There are plenty of "functional programming >> for OO programmers" but I have never seen "OO programming for functional >> programmers". >> >> > In the C++ world Stepanov is almost on par with Stroupstrup. His STL has > transformed C++ practices more than anything else > Good to read his views on OOP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov#Criticism_of_OOP > > Just realized that the resultant anti-OOP direction of my earlier mail is stronger than is good for a young computer scientist. In a field like ours its as important to be able to wear a technical/mathematical hat as a social or political one. And when the latter, its good to be able to participate in a discussion in which inheritance, UML etc etc figures.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
