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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #12703 > unrolled thread

Functions vs OOP

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#12739

On Sep 3, 9:15 pm, William Gill <nore...@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.

Staying with (for the moment) the suggestion that OO-P and F-P are
complementary, I believe it is worthwhile to distinguish syntactic OO-
P vs F-P from semantic OO-P vs F-P.

Syntactically: f(x) is functional x.f() is object oriented.
Semantically if f's return value depends only on x ie does not depend
on state it is functional (in the math sense) -- the jargon is that f
is referentially transparent.

Referential opaqueness is usually such a source of problems that it
turns out good to contain the problem somewhat -- hence the wish for
encapsulation.

One can find in the python library itself all 4 combinations:
syntactically and semantically OO : sort
syntactically and semantically FP: sorted
syntactically OO semantically FP: join

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12786

On 9/4/2011 9:13 AM, rusi wrote:
> On Sep 3, 9:15 pm, William Gill<nore...@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.
>
> Staying with (for the moment) the suggestion that OO-P and F-P are
> complementary, I believe it is worthwhile to distinguish syntactic OO-
> P vs F-P from semantic OO-P vs F-P.
>
> Syntactically: f(x) is functional x.f() is object oriented.
> Semantically if f's return value depends only on x ie does not depend
> on state it is functional (in the math sense) -- the jargon is that f
> is referentially transparent.

Not to split hairs, but syntactically f(x) is a function in many 
programming paradigms.

As I understand it functional programming places specific requirements 
on functions, i.e.referential transparency.  So f(x) may or may not be 
"functional".

x.f() is also a function, but it is a member of the object x, is 
referred to as a 'method' of x, and uses the syntactical "dot" notation 
object"dot"function for identification.

> Referential opaqueness is usually such a source of problems that it
> turns out good to contain the problem somewhat -- hence the wish for
> encapsulation.
>
> One can find in the python library itself all 4 combinations:
> syntactically and semantically OO : sort
> syntactically and semantically FP: sorted
> syntactically OO semantically FP: join

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12788

William Gill wrote:
>
> Not to split hairs, but syntactically f(x) is a function in many 
> programming paradigms.
>
> As I understand it functional programming places specific requirements 
> on functions, i.e.referential transparency.  So f(x) may or may not be 
> "functional".
>
> x.f() is also a function, but it is a member of the object x, is 
> referred to as a 'method' of x, and uses the syntactical "dot" 
> notation object"dot"function for identification.
>

Functional programming is not about writing a programm with functions 
(google it for more info). This may cause some confusion.

Your original post was about functions vs methods, which are identical 
except some syntax detail. FYI, in python x.f() is equivalent to f(x). 
In an OOP world one will  prefer the x.f() form.


JM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12803

On 9/5/2011 3:04 PM, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> William Gill wrote:
>>
>> Not to split hairs, but syntactically f(x) is a function in many
>> programming paradigms.
>>
>> As I understand it functional programming places specific requirements
>> on functions, i.e.referential transparency. So f(x) may or may not be
>> "functional".
>>
>> x.f() is also a function, but it is a member of the object x, is
>> referred to as a 'method' of x, and uses the syntactical "dot"
>> notation object"dot"function for identification.
>>
>
> Functional programming is not about writing a programm with functions
> <snip>. This may cause some confusion.

It can, and it did.  That was the impression I (incorrectly) got from 
the documentation.  Which didn't make sense to me.


> (google it for more info).

I can, and I did.  That, and the answers I got in this ng are how I 
corrected my misconception.

>
> Your original post was about functions vs methods, which are identical
> except some syntax detail. FYI, in python x.f() is equivalent to f(x).
> In an OOP world one will prefer the x.f() form.
>
No, my original post was about how (based on the aforementioned 
misconception) the documentation seemed to suggest that OOP should never 
have free standing functions, only methods.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12795

On 9/5/2011 1:45 PM, William Gill wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 9:13 AM, rusi wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 9:15 pm, William Gill<nore...@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.
>>
>> Staying with (for the moment) the suggestion that OO-P and F-P are
>> complementary, I believe it is worthwhile to distinguish syntactic OO-
>> P vs F-P from semantic OO-P vs F-P.
>>
>> Syntactically: f(x) is functional x.f() is object oriented.
>> Semantically if f's return value depends only on x ie does not depend
>> on state it is functional (in the math sense) -- the jargon is that f
>> is referentially transparent.
>
> Not to split hairs, but syntactically f(x) is a function in many
> programming paradigms.
>
> As I understand it functional programming places specific requirements
> on functions, i.e.referential transparency. So f(x) may or may not be
> "functional".

In Python, it may be a parameterized procedure. Some languages separate 
functions and procedures (also called subroutines). Python does not. 
(Or you could say that it makes procedures into functions with 
side-effects by returning None by default).

> x.f() is also a function, but it is a member of the object x, is
> referred to as a 'method' of x, and uses the syntactical "dot" notation
> object"dot"function for identification.
>
>> Referential opaqueness is usually such a source of problems that it
>> turns out good to contain the problem somewhat -- hence the wish for
>> encapsulation.
>>
>> One can find in the python library itself all 4 combinations:
>> syntactically and semantically OO : sort
>> syntactically and semantically FP: sorted
>> syntactically OO semantically FP: join
>


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web