Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha)

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:14:39 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) bburshteyn@amsdec.com (Boris Burshteyn) (2014-09-09)
Re: Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming language available (alpha) gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2014-09-10)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2014-09-11)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-09-15)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2014-09-20)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-09-21)
Re: OOP vs imperative, was Hello v1.0.3 distributed programming langua kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:14:39 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
References: 14-09-005 14-09-007
Keywords: books, OOP
Posted-Date: 10 Sep 2014 14:09:31 EDT

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>For that reason, I tended to think of imperative as exclusive
>from object-oriented.


One way to categorize programming languages is "imperative" ("do this!
do that!") vs. "declarative" ("x is the list of primes.").


"Object-oriented" is a property (or a collection of properties) of
some programming languages; the original object-oriented languages are
all imperative. Some concepts have been transferred from
object-oriented imperative languages to functional languages, but
whether these languages are considered object-oriented probably
depends on who you ask.


In any case, "imperative" and "object-oriented" are everything but
exclusive.


>Not that you can't, or shouldn't, write
>imperative programs in OO languages, but that it wouldn't be
>used as a term in the description. (Or, why is it that vol. 2
>isn't called "Non-Object Oriented Languages"?)


You would have to ask the editor. "Non-Object Oriented Languages"
would describe everything in Volume 2-4. My guess is that he did not
call Volume 2 "Non-Object Oriented Imperative Languages" because that
would be very long-winded, and since there is a separate volume on
object-oriented languages, it is clear that Volume 2 does not cover
that.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.