Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.009 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:: [': 0.04; 'abstraction': 0.09; 'logic': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'bullet': 0.16; 'cc:name:python list': 0.16; 'distinct': 0.16; 'higher-level': 0.16; 'janssen': 0.16; 'lambda': 0.16; 'models,': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'subject:OOP': 0.16; 'subject:object': 0.16; 'subject:possible': 0.16; 'subject:programming': 0.16; 'subject:type': 0.16; 'valid.': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'mechanism': 0.19; 'subject:] ': 0.20; 'machine': 0.22; 'programming': 0.22; 'cc:addr:gmail.com': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; "shouldn't": 0.24; 'cheers,': 0.24; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'second': 0.26; 'subject:/': 0.26; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'wonder': 0.29; 'cc:2**2': 0.30; 'programming.': 0.30; 'dimensions': 0.31; 'purely': 0.31; 'writes:': 0.31; 'announce': 0.33; 'style': 0.33; 'possible.': 0.35; 'building': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'picking': 0.36; 'programming,': 0.36; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'so,': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'functional': 0.39; 'skip:p 20': 0.39; 'skip:* 10': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'subject:The': 0.64; 'interest': 0.64; 'different': 0.65; 'to:addr:gmail.com': 0.65; 'six': 0.68; 'design.': 0.68; 'theoretical': 0.74; 'foundations': 0.84; 'calculus': 0.91; 'mistake': 0.91; 'obtained': 0.96 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:30:36 +0100 From: Uday S Reddy To: Mark Janssen Subject: Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) Cc: types-list@lists.seas.upenn.edu, Python List , DeLesley Hutchins X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1366191046 news.xs4all.nl 2585 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52418 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:43749 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 machine for object-oriented and > imperative programming, lambda calculus for functional programming, > and first order logic for logic programming." > > While I understand the interest in purely theoretical models, I wonder > two things: 1) Are these distinct models of computation valid? And, > 2) If so, shouldn't a theory of types announce what model of > computation they are working from? These distinctions are not fully valid. - Functional programming, logic programming and imperative programming are three different *computational mechanisms*. - Object-orientation and abstract data types are two different ways of building higher-level *abstractions*. The authors of this paragraph did not understand that computational mechanisms and higher-level abstractions are separate, orthogonal dimensions in programming language design. All six combinations, obtained by picking a computational mechanism from the first bullet and an abstraction mechanism from the second bullet, are possible. It is a mistake to put object-orientation in the first bullet. Their idea of "paradigm" is vague and ill-defined. Cheers, Uday Reddy