[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
on OO v. FP, and why lang's like Ruby feels so good
in relation to our long-ago discussion on OO v. FP, and why lang's like
Ruby feels so good and transparent to use, no matter how superior some
langs might impress theoretically/formalistically:
"""Animacy is a powerful conceptual tool with which to analyze programming
paradigms (see Table 3.2 for a summary). In particular, it can help explain
the specific appeal and utility of object-oriented programming, which has
in recent years become an extremely popular model for commercial
programming. OOP is fundamentally just a way of organizing a program, and
it has not always been clear why or even if it is a superior way to do so.
Animism provides a theory about why OOP is powerful: its particular style
of modularization divides up a program so that animate thinking can be
readily applied to any of its parts. Functional programming, on the other
hand, provides a model that systematically excludes animism, which might
explain why, despite its undeniable theoretical advantages, it has little
popularity outside of a small research community.
"Programming with Agents:
New metaphors for thinking about computation"
by Michael Travers?
this text is of high relevancy to language design. A must-read!
and it does a great job of clarifying and justifying the role of
metaphorical thinking in CS/lang-des.
amike via Henning
PS. for those who havn't read it already, please take a look at FPS by
Thomas Kühne for an interesting description of the possibilities and
conditions for integrating OO and FP concepts in one lang.