On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:26:27 +0100, Mark Janssen
<dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote:
= Rusi, attribution missing from original.
Objects in programming languages (or 'values' if one is more functional
programming oriented) correspond to things in the world.
One of the things you're saying there is that "values correspond to
things in the world". But you will not get agreement in computer
science on that anymore than saying "numbers correspond to things in
the world" -- they are abstractions that are not supposed to
correspond to things. (Objects, OTOH, were intended to, so your
statement has mixed truthiness.)
Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
things in our minds.
That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
"typedef"s that make it a thing for the computer.
Speaking as a C programmer, no. We have explicit typedefs to create new
labels for existing types, to make the type-abstraction easier to relate
to the object-abstraction. Not that I personally think of C objects as
abstractions, I'm rather with Rusi on that, but if you do then the object
type must be an abstracted abstraction. At which point my head starts to
hurt and I'll get back to some engineering if you don't mind.
The same in the world of programming languages:
No. There is one world in which the computer is well-defined. All
others are suspect.
Perhaps, though I'm personally rather dubious of that claim. Proving
well-definedness may be rather interesting.
Yeah, well 40 years ago they didn't have parsers. The purpose of
having a field of computer science worthy of the name, is to advance
the science not let this riff-raff dominate the practice.
That is an utterly ludicrous statement (and grammatically suspect to boot)
that does nothing to bolster my confidence in your philosophising.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
