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..