Uday S Reddy於 2013年4月17日星期三UTC+8下午5時10分58秒寫道：
Mark Janssen writes:
Having said that, theorists do want to unify concepts wherever possible
and wherever they make sense. Imperative programming types, which I
will call storage types, are semantically the same as classes.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Jason Wilkins
jason.a.wilk...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't quite think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that
mathematical models are not a good foundation for computer science because
computers are really made out of electronic gates?
No, I'm
I think there is some misunderstanding here. Being mathematical in
academic work is a way of making our ideas rigorous and precise, instead of
trying to peddle wooly nonsense.
I'm sorry. I am responsible for the misunderstanding. I used the
word math when I really mean symbolic logic
Ned Batchelder於 2013年4月20日星期六UTC+8上午12時41分03秒寫道：
On 4/19/2013 12:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:02:00 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
PS: a great C++ interview question is, What's the difference between a
class and a struct? Amazing how few self-professed C++
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:53:15 -0700
From: dreamingforw...@gmail.com
To: types-l...@lists.seas.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of
OOP and imperative programming languages
I am very thankful for the references given by everyone.
I don't quite think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that
mathematical models are not a good foundation for computer science because
computers are really made out of electronic gates?
All I need to do is show that my model reduces to some basic physical
implementation (with
Mark Janssen writes:
The main thing that I notice is that there is a heavy bias in
academia towards mathematical models. I understand that Turing
Machines, for example, were originally abstract computational concepts
before there was an implementation in hardware, so I have some
sympathies
The main thing that I notice is that there is a heavy bias in
academia towards mathematical models. I understand that Turing
Machines, for example, were originally abstract computational concepts
before there was an implementation in hardware, so I have some
sympathies with that view, yet,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:14:13 -0400, Robert Harper wrote:
In short, there is no such thing as a paradigm.
Of course there is. A paradigm is a distinct way of thinking, a
philosophy if you will. To say that there is no such thing as a paradigm
is to say that all ways of thinking about a topic
In article 517131cd$0$29977$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:14:13 -0400, Robert Harper wrote:
In short, there is no such thing as a paradigm.
Of course there is. A paradigm is a distinct way of
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
I was indeed talking about the ways people think about programming. For
example, OOP in C++ is very much about encapsulation. People declare
all data private, and writing setter/getter functions which carefully
control what
In article mailman.821.1366378384.3114.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
I was indeed talking about the ways people think about programming. For
example, OOP in C++ is very much about
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
#define private public
#define protected public
#include whatever.h
And:
#define class struct
But what I mean is that, _in my design_, I make everything public. No
getters/setters, just direct member access. The theory behind
In article mailman.824.1366386029.3114.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
#define private public
#define protected public
#include whatever.h
And:
#define class struct
I suppose, while we're
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:02:00 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
PS: a great C++ interview question is, What's the difference between a
class and a struct? Amazing how few self-professed C++ experts have no
clue.
I'm not a C++ expert, but I am an inquiring mind, and I want to know the
answer!
--
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:07:15 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
Often, when you talk to C++ people, they will tell you that
encapsulation is what OOP is all about. What they are doing is saying,
C++ isa OOPL, and C++ has encapsulation, therefore OOPL implies
encapsulation. When they look at something
On 4/19/2013 12:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:02:00 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
PS: a great C++ interview question is, What's the difference between a
class and a struct? Amazing how few self-professed C++ experts have no
clue.
I'm not a C++ expert, but I am an inquiring
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:02:00 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
PS: a great C++ interview question is, What's the difference between a
class and a struct? Amazing how few self-professed C++ experts have no
I wrote:
I suppose people who grew up learning Python as their first language
look at something like C++ and say, That's not OOP because classes
aren't objects, or something equally silly.
In article 517172e7$0$29977$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano
In article mailman.843.1366412626.3114.python-l...@python.org,
Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:02:00 -0400, Roy Smith r...@panix.com declaimed
the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
PS: a great C++ interview question is, What's the difference
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:37:38 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
There aren't many schools who teach Python as a first (and only
language), but I suppose it's starting to catch on. 5 years from now,
we may see waves of kids graduating from college knowing nothing but
Python, with a similarly narrow view
Warning, this is a bit of a rant.
That paragraph from Wikipedia seems to be confused. It gives the fourth
paradigm as declarative but then says first order logic for logic
programming. It seems somebody did an incomplete replacement of
declarative for logic. Wikipedia is often schizophrenic
In short, there is no such thing as a paradigm. I agree fully. This term is
a holdover from the days when people spent time and space trying to build
taxonomies based on ill-defined superficialities. See Steve Gould's essay
What, If Anything, Is A Zebra?. You'll enjoy learning that there
The term declarative never meant a damn thing, but was often used, absurdly,
to somehow lump together functional programming with logic programming, and
separate it from imperative programming. It never made a lick of sense; it's
just a marketing term.
Bob Harper
On Apr 18, 2013, at 2:48 PM,
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Moez AbdelGawad moeza...@outlook.com wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I'll give it a shot.
:-)
I'm in this same camp too :)
I am very thankful for the references given by everyone.
Unfortunately my library does not have the titles and
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
The main thing that I notice is that there is a heavy bias in
academia towards mathematical models. I understand that Turing
Machines, for example, were originally abstract computational concepts
before there was
Mark Janssen writes:
Having said that, theorists do want to unify concepts wherever possible
and wherever they make sense. Imperative programming types, which I
will call storage types, are semantically the same as classes.
I like that word storage type, it makes it much clearer what
Mark Janssen writes:
From: en.wikipedia.org: Programming_paradigm:
A programming paradigm is a fundamental style of computer
programming. There are four main paradigms: object-oriented,
imperative, functional and declarative. Their foundations are distinct
models of computation: Turing
If you have trouble getting hold of The Essence of Algol, ...
There seems to be a downloadable copy at:
www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Reynolds81.ps
It's in PostScript, which is easily convertible to PDF if you wish.
Nikhil
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Uday S Reddy
On 17.04.2013 11:30, Uday S Reddy wrote:
Mark Janssen writes:
From: en.wikipedia.org: Programming_paradigm:
A programming paradigm is a fundamental style of computer
programming. There are four main paradigms: object-oriented,
imperative, functional and declarative. Their foundations are
I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I'll give it a shot. :-)
Thank you, and my apologies for my late reply.
The C/C++ model, in which the types are anchored to the machine hardware, in
the exception, not the rule. In the academic literature, type theory is
almost entirely
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Uday S Reddy u.s.re...@cs.bham.ac.uk wrote:
In programming language theory, there is no law to the effect that
everything should be of one kind or another. So, we would not go with
Alan Kay's ideal.
I understand. I state Kay's points to show how the evolution
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Understood, but I feel this is where theory has gone too far away from
reality.
How so? Turing machines and lambda calculus were both invented in the
30s, before any real mechanical computers existed. If anything,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel like I'm having to come up to speed of the academic
community, but wonder how and why this large chasm happened between
the applied community and the theoretical. In my mind, despite the
ideals of academia,
Mark Janssen writes:
After the 2001 type/class unification , it went towards Alan Kay's ideal
of everything is an object
As a contrast, this is very distinct from C++, where everything is
concretely rooted in the language's type model which in *itself* is
rooted (from it's long
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:55:59 -0700
From: deles...@gmail.com
To: dreamingforw...@gmail.com
CC: types-l...@lists.seas.upenn.edu; python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of
OOP and imperative programming languages
[ The Types
On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
After the 2001 type/class unification , it went towards Alan Kay's ideal
Are you sure? Remember Kay's two motivations [*], which he so elegantly
describes with [the] large scale one was to find a better module scheme for
complex systems
I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I'll give it a shot. :-)
The C/C++ model, in which the types are anchored to the machine hardware,
in the exception, not the rule. In the academic literature, type theory
is almost entirely focused on studying abstract models of computation
38 matches
Mail list logo
