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


Groups > comp.lang.python > #12735

Re: Functions vs OOP

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From tinnews@isbd.co.uk
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Subject Re: Functions vs OOP
Date Sun, 4 Sep 2011 09:13:49 +0100
Lines 34
Message-ID <tiobj8-sng.ln1@chris.zbmc.eu> (permalink)
References <j3tjov$c30$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.743.1315075846.27778.python-list@python.org>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
X-Trace individual.net TiWxkY210Gmptj6rmQxHAAjnC/2Nq5gAog8BPRiTYl7mJ4bCA=
X-Orig-Path not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock sha1:KAK+xfSGruTieQkBV/2DIXvS8n8=
User-Agent tin/1.9.6-20100522 ("Lochruan") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.35-30-server (x86_64))
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:12735

Show key headers only | View raw


Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM, William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > During some recent research, and re-familiarization with Python, I came
> > across documentation that suggests that programming using functions, and
> > programming using objects were somehow opposing techniques.
> >
> > It seems to me that they are complimentary.  It makes sense to create
> > objects and have some functions that take those objects as arguments. Are
> > they suggesting that any function that takes an object as an argument should
> > always be a method of that object?  Conversely I can see creating functions
> > that take raw input (e.g. strings) and return it in a format compatible with
> > an object's constructor, rather than have objects accept any conceivable
> > format for its constructor.
> >
> > Am I missing something, or am I taking things too literally?
> 
> I think you may be confusing "functional programming" and "programming
> using functions".  These are not the same thing.
> 
> Functional programming is about using functions in the *mathematical*
> sense.  A mathematical function maps one value (or tuple of values) to
> another value.  The mapped value never varies; if it did, it would be
> a different function.  So functional programming eschews the use of
> functions where the results depend on any internal or external state
> beyond the values of the passed-in arguments, such as the variable
> state of the object the method is being called on.
> 
I think there may be another issue here.  If someone says "functional
programming" to me then I would generally assume that they *do* mean
"programming using functions".  While your distinction of the two may
be strictly correct I don't think it's the generally accepted meaning.

-- 
Chris Green

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


Thread

Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 12:15 -0400
  Re: Functions vs OOP Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-04 02:25 +1000
    Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-03 15:15 -0400
      Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:34 -0400
        Re: Functions vs OOP Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-09-04 07:39 +1000
          Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:58 -0400
        Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-03 21:51 -0400
          Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 22:18 -0400
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-05 14:58 -0400
  Re: Functions vs OOP MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-09-03 17:29 +0100
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:09 -0400
  Re: Functions vs OOP Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-09-03 12:50 -0600
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:13 -0400
    Re: Functions vs OOP tinnews@isbd.co.uk - 2011-09-04 09:13 +0100
      Re: Functions vs OOP Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-04 21:18 +1000
      Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-04 14:32 -0400
        Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-04 15:43 -0400
          Re: Functions vs OOP Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-05 09:41 +1000
            Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-04 20:46 -0400
            Re: Functions vs OOP Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 10:59 +1000
  Re: Functions vs OOP rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 06:13 -0700
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-05 13:45 -0400
      Re: Functions vs OOP Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2011-09-05 21:04 +0200
        Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-05 20:30 -0400
      Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-05 18:55 -0400

csiph-web