Hello Bulat, On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:52:22 +0400, you wrote:
>you can replace OOP with FP in the manual text i cited and read it as >modern text :) Mostly, perhaps. But how about the following portions (see page 16) [1]? ;) >Object-oriented languages were once called "actor languages" with this >metaphor in mind. >One often amusing outgrowth of this is that OOP fanatics anthropomorphize >their objects. Data structures are no longer passive buckets for you to toss >values in. In the new view of things, an object is looked upon as an actor on >a stage, with a set of lines (methods) memorized. When you (the director) >give the word, the actor recites from the script. Let's try.... >Functional languages were once called "actor languages" with this metaphor in >mind. Hmm ... this doesn't quite seem to fit.... >One often amusing outgrowth of this is that FP fanatics anthropomorphize >their functions. Data structures are no longer passive buckets for you to toss >values in. In the new view of things, a function is looked upon as an actor on >a stage, with a set of lines (<replace "methods" with something appropriate >here>) >memorized. When you (the director) give the word, the actor recites from the >script. Forgive me, but I can't quite think of anything corresponding to "methods" here. Can you get these portions to fit without mixing metaphors? ;-) -- Benjamin L. Russell [1] Borland International, Inc. _Turbo Pascal 5.5 Object-Oriented Programming Guide._ Scotts Valley, CA: Borland International, Inc., 1989. <http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/images/20803/TP_55_OOP_Guide.pdf>. -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^ _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
