[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]random question

From: minddog
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]random question
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:10:03 -0700
User-agent: KMail/1.5.9

On Saturday 08 February 2003 01:50, Thong \(Tum\) Nguyen wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: j_post [mailto:address@hidden
> >
> > On Friday 07 February 2003 07:03 pm, you wrote:
> > > OOP is more than just "structs with methods"
> >
> > True. It's a new paradigm.
> I think what it really comes down to is this:
> All Turing complete languages are equivalent.
> i.e. You can write C code that, functionally, does the same thing as C++
> code

Here's my 2 cents:
Object Oriented theory is the topic of conversation, how a syntax can mold 
into an Object Oriented Viewpoint is the what we try to do if we would like 
to use this practice for certain designs.  Just like Aspect Oriented theory 
can be done in any language.  

> But that doesn't mean all programming paradigms are equivalent.
> i.e. OOP != Logical != Functional

> You can "hack" C code to give you something similar to OOP but without
> language support, polymorphism (etc) are a pain to actually implement
> and use.

Not similar but equivalent, and its not language support, its the defined 
syntax itself.  It's only a pain if you truly don't understand the syntax you 
are working with.  You need to peek inside a language's compiler if you don't 
necessarily understand from books or documentation.

> You can sort of do functional programming in C as well, but without the
> language support (lambda expressions, etc) you can't really do useful
> functional programming.

I disagree, I think you need the experience to do such programming.  Although 
it is easier if the syntax defines certain designs already from theory, ala 
Object Oriented Programming languages and Functional...

> I don't think you want to merge the definitions of different language
> paradigms into one simply because they're all "equivalent" at a
> fundamental level ;-).

Well, for a long time its been tough with AOP... and merging is a great 
learning experience ;)

> When talking about Fruit, you can say that Apples and Oranges are
> different.  But at the fundamental level, they're both just energy.

Well a syntax is designed to be easier for the programmer to lean towards 
certain design principles in his/her own approach.  I don't think you can 
compare something that is logical to an object that is in a defined state.  
Maybe you can, but thats outside the conversation ;)

> When talking about programming paradigms, OOP and other paradigms are
> different.  But at the fundamental level, they're both computationally
> equivalent.

Uh huh.  So whats the problem with molding your syntax for your design?
Sometimes you are stuck in an environment that doesn't have the capabilities 
of an OO syntax.  ;X  Good luck =)

--minddog( Adam Ballai )

"I try to take it one day at a time, but several of them attack me at once."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]