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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Bob Gilbert) Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/09/06 Message-ID: <50p68s$cpi@zeus.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178867766 references: <01bb9a1e$24c669e0$32ee6fcf@timhome2> organization: The unconfigured xvnews people reply-to: rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bb9a1e$24c669e0$32ee6fcf@timhome2>, "Tim Behrendsen" writes: > Lawrence Kirby wrote in article > <841797763snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>... > > In article <01bb8f19$9a89d820$32ee6fce@timhome2> > > tim@airshields.com "Tim Behrendsen" writes: > > >Bob Gilbert wrote in article > > ><4vcac4$gm6@zeus.orl.mmc.com>... > > >> A very procedural point of view. Many of the proponents of object > > >> oriented design might have a problem with this view, and demonstrates > > >> my point about allowing the details of implementation to obscure the > > >> higher level problem solving process. > > > > > >There is no other view than the procedural view. > > > > Some functional language programmers might take issue with that > > statement. Prologgers may have a thought or two also. > > What I mean by that is, for work to get done, the computer > must perform transformations of data over time. You can call > that an implementation detail if you want, but there simply is > no such thing as "instantaneous" algorithms. You can look > at a mathematical proof as existing without procedures, in the > sense that it simply "exists", as a statement of truth, but > algorithms are different. They are, by their nature, a > process, and processes require a time axis. I suspect our definitions of procedural vs non-procedural (e.g. object oriented) views are not the same. Non-procedural views do not imply "instantaneous" algorithms, the non-existence of a time axis, or whatever. The difference is whether I veiw the problem solution as being built by putting together a bunch of operations (procedures) that I can invoke to manipulate whatever data I happen to have, or I can view the problem solution as being built by putting together the appropiate data elements (objects) for which certain operations are defined. Are the basic building blocks procedures or objects? BTW, I'm not necessarily advocating one view over another, just trying to point out that there are views other than a procedural view. -Bob