Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Re: OOP experiments- Component

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg38697] Re: [mg38695] Re: OOP experiments- Component
• From: "Hermann Schmitt" <schmitther at netcologne.de>
• Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 03:42:24 -0500 (EST)
• References: <av6l0n$o2i$1@smc.vnet.net> <200301051134.GAA29102@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Hello,

I think, those skilled programmers, perhaps including you, forget, when
criticizing OOP, that Mathematica packages are also a form, to organize
"traditional" Mathematica code, and classes are - in  my opinion -
comparable to packages in this sense, but have more capabilities.

Hermann Schmitt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Orestis Vantzos" <atelesforos at hotmail.com>
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Subject: [mg38697] [mg38695] Re: OOP experiments- Component


> Despite being a fervent supporter of OOP myself, I must note that
> Mathematica programming has typically a fairly rapid development
> cycle: functions are written and tested "in place" and the final
> product is usually one or more "one-liners". My point is that most
> users are not really interested in organizing their code in as strict
> a manner as the OOP paradigm would dictate. The lack of types in
Mathematica
> is another hint to that. I believe that this "informality" is the main
> reason that certain very skilled Mathematica programmers are opposed
> to the whole OOP idea. I don't really disagree with them, by the way..
> Anyway, I believe that OOP has more to offer to Mathematica in terms
> of entirely new logical structures for programming, rather than as a
> way to organize "traditional" Mathematica code. I feel that the
> typical benefits of 'reusability','modularity',etc. might not be as
> useful in Mathematica as in classic programming languages.
> Orestis Vantzos
>
> S. Shaw" <steve at shawstudio.com> wrote in message
news:<av6l0n$o2i$1 at smc.vnet.net>...
> > A series of OOP experiments in Mathematica.
> > msg#3 - Component, part#1: Inspiration.
> >
> >
> > Ha!  I found out that Google Groups has this newsgroup archived, so I
was
> > able to search the prior discussions about OOP in Mathematica.
> >
> > One comment caught my eye -
> > even purely functional programmers might be interested in wrapping a
> > functional package into a Component.
> >
> > So, while I am going to continue to discuss programming "in the small" -
on
> > the way to "OOP" - if that doesn't interest you, then think of it as an
> > exploration that will lead to making great Components in Mathematica.
> >
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > Discussion:
> >
> > "Type" (including "Interface") and "Contract" are at the heart of
Component
> > Programming.
> >
> > So is "Unification of data and function".  Therefore, a "component" has
> > strong similarities to an "object".
> >
> >
> > To be continued...
> >
> > -- Steve S. Shaw (ToolmakerSteve)
>

• References:
  • Re: OOP experiments- Component
    • From: atelesforos@hotmail.com (Orestis Vantzos)