Re: Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg37614] Re: [mg37554] Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?
- From: "Hermann Schmitt" <schmitther at netcologne.de>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:55:08 -0500 (EST)
- References: <apvbk6$rmb$1@smc.vnet.net> <200211050959.EAA14121@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Hello, OO adds data types and member functionw to Mathematica, in order to make Mathematica more useful Hermann Schmitt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens-Peer Kuska" <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net Subject: [mg37614] [mg37554] Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP? > Hi, > > NO ! objects "'should' not be here". > > You are using a functional programming language > that is much better than OOP can ever be. > > OOP is for data & data types. > > The natural way of thinking is: > "I wish to do something" and you exectue the function that > does this "something". > > and not > "What data are needed to do the job and what > else can I do with the data?" > > Since Mathematica know nothing about data types > it is useless to add member-functions to the > non existing data types. > > But you can "overload" an existing function > and extend it's usage. > > Regards > Jens > > "Steven T. Hatton" wrote: > > > > I must admit, Mathematica looks a lot different to me after having done some > > real programming in Java, than it did a few years ago. I understand it much > > better, but I also find myself grasping for things that don't seem to be > > native to the product/language. > > > > There seems to be virtually no native support for OOP in Mathematica. Am I > > understanding things correctly? Dr. Mäder (I'm being a bit stubborn here - > > use UTF-8) provides his own object package with his Computer Science with > > Mathematica. I haven't worked with yet, but by looking it over, it seems a > > bit kluged ( http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=kluge > > ). I don't mean to upbraid Dr. Mäder's attempt to add functionality which > > probably should be a native part of the Mathematica language. Perhaps I'll > > get used to the approach he has used, but for now, I must say, it seems > > awkward. My guess is Dr. Mäder did the best that could be expected with the > > constraints under which he was working. > > > > It is inconceivable to me that I am the first person to question the lack of > > native OO support in Mathematica. There must be a history of discussion on > > this topic. Is anybody aware of a record of such? Am I not understanding > > things correctly? Do others believe OO support is lacking in Mathematica, > > and really 'should' be here? > > -- > > STH > > Hatton's Law: > > "There is only One inviolable Law." >
- References:
- Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?
- From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?