From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b076e6315fd62dc5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.195.165 with SMTP id if5mr141307pbc.1.1336723152303;
        Fri, 11 May 2012 00:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63
Path: 
 pr3ni12908pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!nntpfeed.proxad.net!78.192.65.63.MISMATCH!news.muarf.org!news.franciliens.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: fyi, very interesting Ada paper OOP vs. Readability
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:58:49 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <18ct9oamzq1u1$.wh6hj9mlqxna$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jodq5f$j5f$1@speranza.aioe.org> <johvef$cgg$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1ir29foizbqv1.v9uuhpykjl3n.dlg@40tude.net> <joifa0$e9f$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-11T09:58:49+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 11 May 2012 02:32:09 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:

>> P.S. There is no data without types.
> 
> I think the functional programmer guys will not be happy to
> hear this.

No less as I am unhappy with functional programming... (:-))

BTW, there is a pun in the name. Functional programming is non-functional
in its core as it strives to remove side-effects while the only purpose of
any computing is side-effects. (:-))
 
> For example, I use Mathematica, and in Mathematica, there is no
> data types.  Only expressions. There are transformation
> rules to transform an expression from one form to another.

Yes, but as mathematicians have learned a century ago this approach does
not work. You cannot take an axiomatic set theory and the proceed like
1={}, 2={{}}, 3={{{}}}... coming to integer arithmetic, real numbers,
functional analysis (Hilbert's program). That does not work even
theoretically in much more powerful models than pitiful FSA, our computers
are.

A type gives you an opportunity to jump over all constructivist's
nightmares. You just define a type Employee and do not care to play God
creating real employees. That is the power of abstraction. Yes, there is a
price to pay. You have to define operations on Employee, you cannot get
them as theorems in the process of construction. This is what typing is all
about.

> But I think in the world of OO and procedural programming, what
> you are saying makes sense. One defines a type, then declares
> a variable of that type. i.e. data (i.e. variables) always has
> a type.  But I do not think this is the case for all programming
> languages?

This is THE case for whole mathematics since Bertrand Russell's time.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de