What have you found for these years?

2011-03-25

random thoughts on imperative/functional (2)

希望這篇忽然改用中文寫不會很怪...。

讀愈多 functional programming, type system, 還有 data abstraction 的
東西,就愈覺得 dynamic typing (duck typing, unityping, whatever) 和
object-oriented programming 的路是錯的。然而我覺得 ruby 很好用卻
又是不爭的事實。

這有點像在不斷研究理論來試圖殺死自己,卻又一直無法解釋為什麼殺不死,
像是這樣奇妙的感覺。好像理論是理論,但實務上做起來卻又很憑感覺且
草莽,隨隨便便亂弄一通,東西忽然就變出來這樣。but It Worked™,
somehow, partially, probably.

相關閱讀:

1273. 11-15 On Understanding Data Abstraction (0)
What To Know Before Debating Type Systems
Don’t mention equality!
Boolean Blindness
What is a functional language?
Dynamic languages are static languages

written in buzz on 2011-03-19
what i am wondering is that,
what if an object-oriented program has no states at all?
would that be so "antimodular"? (in the author's words in point 5)
or, this won't be considered an object-oriented program anymore?
since what object-orienting brings us might only be namespace left.

written in buzz on 2011-03-20
i hate boolean too!
apparently i am on the side of languages and semantics...
i hate complexity :s

這幾天看有沒有機會試著用 haskell 驗證一下..

0 retries:

Post a Comment

All texts are licensed under CC Attribution 3.0