The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

[Mark Janssen]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
> You won't solve the problem of confusing, ambiguous, or conflicting
> terminology by making up a rule.  "Object-oriented" means subtly different
> things to different people.

That's a problem, not a solution.

>  It turns out that computing is a complex field
> with subtle concepts that don't always fit neatly into a categorization.

But that is the point of having a *field*.

> Python, Java, Javascript, Ruby, Smalltalk, Self, PHP, C#, Objective-C, and
> C++ are all "object-oriented", but they also all have differences between
> them.  That's OK.  We aren't going to make up a dozen words as alternatives
> to "object-oriented", one for each language.

Well, you won't, but other people *in the field* already have,
fortunately.  They have names like dynamically-typed,
statically-typed, etc.

> You seem to want to squeeze all of computer science and programming into a
> tidy hierarchy.

No on "squeeze" and "tidy".  Maybe on "hierarchy".

> It won't work, it's not tidy. I strongly suggest you read
> more about computer science before forming more opinions.  You have a lot to
> learn ahead of you.

Okay, professor is it, master?  What is your provenance anyway?

> --Ned.

-- :)



-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington