Alternate computational models can be harmonious (was Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2)

[rusi]

On May 9, 10:39 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt... at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> > Long story short: the lambda
> > calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
> >  These models of computation should not use the same language.  Their
> > computation models are too radically different.
>
> Their computation models are exactly equivalent.
>
> This is like saying that Cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates are
> so radically different that they cannot possibly both describe the same
> space.

Spot on Steven -- thanks.

And further we do know that from a pragmatic POV the two can be quite
different.
For example cartesian are easier for add/subtract, whereas polar are
easier for multiply/divide.
And so on occasion the best way of doing an operation is to -- if
necessary -- convert to the more appropriate format.

I feel that the case of alternate computation models is analogous --
for some purposes one model works well and sometimes another.

Python embeds the functional model almost as natively as it does the
imperative/OO model.  This is an aspect of python that is powerful but
can also make it hard for some people. In short, python's multi-
paradigm possibilities could do with some good publicity.

My own attempts at bringing functional thinking to classical
imperative languages and Python in particular, will be up at:
https://moocfellowship.org/submissions/the-dance-of-functional-programming-languaging-with-haskell-and-python

It is also an attempt at bringing the lightness and freedom of Python
to the Haskell community and answer divisive judgements of
computational models/paradigms such as the OP's.

More details at http://blog.languager.org/2013/05/dance-of-functional-programming.html