Re: OO vs functional programming: what's a suitable newsgroup?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Öö Tiib, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. Öö Tiib

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Thursday, 14 March 2013 13:19:25 UTC+2, Andy Champ wrote:
    > I came across this in a job advert: "Experience of both functional and
    > Object Oriented design and engineering is essential as the product is
    > evolving from following a functional to an OO design discipline". I was
    > a bit surprised at this - I know little of functional programming (in
    > the Erlang/Haskell etc sense, which I assume is what they mean) but I'd
    > thought it was a newer paradigm.


    It is very old paradigm, Lisp is over 60 years old language.

    In C++ there is some support std::bind, std::function and most importantly
    the lambdas. It is still hard to be purely functional with C++.

    > This as a discussion doesn't really belong here - can anyone suggest a
    > suitable newsgroup? I did look at comp.programming, but it doesn't look
    > healthy.


    Healthy? then maybe comp.lang.lisp. they are heathy always.
     
    Öö Tiib, Mar 14, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Öö Tiib

    Nobody Guest

    On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:56:35 -0700, Öö Tiib wrote:

    > In C++ there is some support std::bind, std::function and most importantly
    > the lambdas. It is still hard to be purely functional with C++.


    OTOH, template metaprogramming is purely functional.
     
    Nobody, Mar 15, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Öö Tiib

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Friday, 15 March 2013 02:29:04 UTC+2, Nobody wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:56:35 -0700, Öö Tiib wrote:
    > > In C++ there is some support std::bind, std::function and most importantly
    > > the lambdas. It is still hard to be purely functional with C++.

    >
    > OTOH, template metaprogramming is purely functional.


    I agree but ...
    1) It was discovered not designed feature of language.
    2) The C++ compilers are inefficient language interpreters.
    3) A code generator written in Haskell or Lisp is far more readable.

    So it is interesting toy but should not be pushed too seriously.
     
    Öö Tiib, Mar 15, 2013
    #3
  4. Öö Tiib

    Nobody Guest

    On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:37:25 -0700, Öö Tiib wrote:

    >> OTOH, template metaprogramming is purely functional.

    >
    > I agree but ...
    > 1) It was discovered not designed feature of language.
    > 2) The C++ compilers are inefficient language interpreters.
    > 3) A code generator written in Haskell or Lisp is far more readable.
    >
    > So it is interesting toy but should not be pushed too seriously.


    C++11 eliminates some of the need for it by providing "constexpr"
    functions. But those also require the use of functional idioms for
    non-trivial cases (e.g. a constexpr function can return an expression
    which involves a recursive call, but it can't use a "for" loop).
     
    Nobody, Mar 15, 2013
    #4
  5. Nobodyæ–¼ 2013å¹´3月16日星期六UTC+8上åˆ2時13分50秒寫é“:
    > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:37:25 -0700, Öö Tiib wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >> OTOH, template metaprogramming is purely functional.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I agree but ...

    >
    > > 1) It was discovered not designed feature of language.

    >
    > > 2) The C++ compilers are inefficient language interpreters.

    >
    > > 3) A code generator written in Haskell or Lisp is far more readable.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So it is interesting toy but should not be pushed too seriously.

    >
    >
    >
    > C++11 eliminates some of the need for it by providing "constexpr"
    >
    > functions. But those also require the use of functional idioms for
    >
    > non-trivial cases (e.g. a constexpr function can return an expression
    >
    > which involves a recursive call, but it can't use a "for" loop).


    Just embed a high level interpreter which could link available
    pre-compiled libraies such as DLLs to accept new classes and new objects
    in the run-time is simple.
     
    88888 Dihedral, Mar 15, 2013
    #5
  6. Öö Tiib

    Geoff Guest

    On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:14:52 +0000, Andy Champ <>
    wrote:

    >On 15/03/2013 20:13, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
    >> Just embed a high level interpreter which could link available
    >> pre-compiled libraies such as DLLs to accept new classes and new objects
    >> in the run-time is simple.

    >
    >Is this guy on acid, or is it just a failed AI program?
    >
    >Andy


    Nobody knows. It doesn't pass the Turing test.
     
    Geoff, Mar 15, 2013
    #6
  7. Andy Champæ–¼ 2013å¹´3月16日星期六UTC+8上åˆ5時14分52秒寫é“:
    > On 15/03/2013 20:13, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
    >
    > > Just embed a high level interpreter which could link available

    >
    > > pre-compiled libraies such as DLLs to accept new classes and new objects

    >
    > > in the run-time is simple.

    >
    >
    >
    > Is this guy on acid, or is it just a failed AI program?
    >
    >
    >
    > Andy


    Do you think that marching toward the AI target is not advancing
    in this century?
     
    88888 Dihedral, Mar 17, 2013
    #7
  8. On Mar 17, 9:20 am, 88888 Dihedral <>
    wrote:
    > Andy Champæ–¼ 2013å¹´3月16日星期六UTC+8上åˆ5時14分52秒寫é“:
    >
    > > On 15/03/2013 20:13, 88888 Dihedral wrote:

    >
    > > > Just embed a high level interpreter which could link available

    >
    > > > pre-compiled libraies such as DLLs to accept new classes and new objects

    >
    > > > in the run-time is simple.

    >
    > > Is this guy on acid, or is it just a failed AI program?

    >
    > > Andy

    >
    > Do you think that marching toward the AI target is not advancing
    > in this century?


    say again. this time in english
     
    Nick Keighley, Mar 17, 2013
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. 88888 Dihedral
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    345
    Alain Ketterlin
    Mar 16, 2013
  2. Melzzzzz
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    330
    Melzzzzz
    Mar 17, 2013
  3. Stefan Ram
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    225
    Stefan Ram
    Mar 14, 2013
  4. Bart van Ingen Schenau
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    226
    Stefan Ram
    Mar 18, 2013
  5. Nick Keighley
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    242
    Nobody
    Mar 16, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page