Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #45059

Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2

Show key headers only | View raw

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.
>>
>> What "problem" are you referring to?  You've been posting on this
>> topic for going on two months now, and I still have no idea of what
>> the point of it all is.
>
> You see Ian, while you and the other millions of coding practitioners
> have (mal)adapted to a suboptimal coding environment where "hey
> there's a language for everyone"  and terms are thrown around,
> misused, this is not how it needs or should be.  Instead of the
> thriving Open Source culture on the web we could have,

Non sequitur.  Open source software has nothing to do with coding
environment or choice of language or OOP paradigm.  Or Turing machines
or lambda calculus, for that matter.

> the community stays fractured.

The open source community seems pretty healthy to me.  What is the
basis of your claim that it is "fractured"?

> Languages can reach for an optimal design (within a constant margin of leeway).

There is no "optimal design".  The *reason* that "there's a language
for everyone" is because different people think about software in
different ways and find different approaches better suited to them.
Furthermore, some programming styles are naturally more conducive to
accomplishing certain tasks, and worse at others.  Take video game
programming for an example.  If I'm working on the graphics engine for
a game, I would probably want to use a low-level imperative language
for efficiency reasons.  If I'm working on the AI, I will more likely
prefer a functional or declarative language for clarity, flexibility
and static analysis.  In either case, OOP is probably a bad choice.

> Language "expressivity" can be measured.

And the measurements can be endlessly debated.  Expressivity is not
the sole measure of a programming language, though.

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

Thread

Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-09 16:30 -0600

csiph-web