Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha)

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From	anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha)
Date	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:14:39 GMT
Organization	Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Lines	34
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<14-09-010@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<14-09-005@comp.compilers> <14-09-007@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host	news.iecc.com
X-Trace	miucha.iecc.com 1410372571 79502 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (10 Sep 2014 18:09:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:09:31 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords	books, OOP
Posted-Date	10 Sep 2014 14:09:31 EDT
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:1376

Show key headers only | View raw

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>For that reason, I tended to think of imperative as exclusive
>from object-oriented.

One way to categorize programming languages is "imperative" ("do this!
do that!") vs. "declarative" ("x is the list of primes.").

"Object-oriented" is a property (or a collection of properties) of
some programming languages; the original object-oriented languages are
all imperative.  Some concepts have been transferred from
object-oriented imperative languages to functional languages, but
whether these languages are considered object-oriented probably
depends on who you ask.

In any case, "imperative" and "object-oriented" are everything but
exclusive.

>Not that you can't, or shouldn't, write
>imperative programs in OO languages, but that it wouldn't be
>used as a term in the description.  (Or, why is it that vol. 2
>isn't called "Non-Object Oriented Languages"?)

You would have to ask the editor.  "Non-Object Oriented Languages"
would describe everything in Volume 2-4.  My guess is that he did not
call Volume 2 "Non-Object Oriented Imperative Languages" because that
would be very long-winded, and since there is a separate volume on
object-oriented languages, it is clear that Volume 2 does not cover
that.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/

Thread

Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) Boris Burshteyn <bburshteyn@amsdec.com> - 2014-09-09 12:38 -0700
  Re: Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-10 01:48 +0000
    Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-09-10 04:58 +0000
    Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2014-09-10 09:44 +0100
    Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-09-10 16:14 +0000
      Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2014-09-11 13:16 +0100
        Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-09-15 08:07 +0000

csiph-web