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

[Mark Janssen]

>> The main thing that I notice is that there is a heavy "bias" in
>> academia towards mathematical models.
>
> Yeah wonderful observation. Lets clean up!
>
> If I have a loop:
>
>  while i < len(a) and a[i] != x:
>    i++
>
> I need to understand that at the end of the loop:
> i >= len(a) or a[i] == x
> and not
> i >= len(a) and a[i] == x
> nor
> i == len(a) or a[i] == x  # What if I forgot to initialize i?

You know in my world, we have what's called Input/Output, rather than
punchcards or switchbanks where you come from.  Why not:  "print
i,a[i]".  Done!

> Now why bother to teach students such a silly thing (and silly name)
> as deMorgan?

Well deMorgan falls into BooleanLogic which I'm arguing is distinct
from the the mathematical realm where the lambda calculus wizards come
from.  So that's my camp, thanks.

> So all hail to your project of cleaning up the useless math from CS.

Yes, on useless math, no on *useful* math.  Thanks.

> And to whet your appetite for the grandeur and glory of your
> visionings why not start with making music schools enroll tone-deaf
> students?  Why wasn't Beethoven deaf?

Beethoven was deaf.

> You need to study some history (or is that irrelevant like math?)
> The Turing who invented the Turing machine in 1936 led the code-
> cracking efforts of the allies a couple of years later.
> Do you allow for the fact that he may have had abilities that were
> common to both aka 'math' 'theory' etc?
> Or do you believe that winning wars is a theoretical and irrelevant
> exercise?

Please, I don't dismiss math anymore than a number theorist might
dismiss the realm of complex numbers.

> Yes there is some truth in what you say.  Just call it logic as object-
> language (what you call logic-gates) and logic as meta-language ie
> logic for reasoning

Right, and I'm arguing that there hasn't been enough conceptual
separation between the two.  So why are you arguing?

> Also good to study the views of one of the doyens of OOP:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov#Criticism_of_OOP

That's a very good reference.  It voices some of my points that are in
criticism of python's object architecture.
-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington