Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2

Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Date	2015-06-01 19:12 -0700
References	<CAMjeLr_eJf1Aboz=2+oti4TOV=oejUYVo7K4zks+Ck4CSHaqpg@mail.gmail.com> <5167F327.3030803@nedbatchelder.com> <CAMjeLr8+pr12+0mN0SOrtg9ZTkNq=PiqxWyqB8CxpJ0BT=sxJA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.1475.1368066966.3114.python-list@python.org> <518b3699$0$11120$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
Message-ID	<687e21ac-be50-4217-954d-ef37e203e366@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Message passing syntax for objects \| OOPv2
From	TheDoctor <dreamingforward@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 12:39:37 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> 
> > Long story short: the lambda
> > calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
> >  These models of computation should not use the same language.  Their
> > computation models are too radically different.  
> 
> Their computation models are exactly equivalent.

No.  Church's thesis was a thesis.  So, yes in theory they can be made to be equivalent.  In practice, it's not.  Practicality beats purity, remember?

> This is like saying that Cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates are 
> so radically different that they cannot possibly both describe the same 
> space.

Good analogy, they in theory have the same descriptive potential.  In practice, you never do it.

Mark
Ho Hum...getting back to some old threads.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 TheDoctor <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-06-01 19:12 -0700

csiph-web