Re: One Ring to Bind Them
From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:01:27 GMT
Message-ID: <H%oDc.98848$2i5.74802_at_attbi_s52>
> It is my firm (and hardening) view that the imperative model of
> programming, with its silly word/record at a time view of the world
> and reliance of fiddling with variables, is the source of the majority
> of the programming world's ills. I think it is simply bizarre that in
> the 21st century we are still being encouraged to think in terms of
> updatable cells of storage and simplistic kiddie steps when far higher
> levels of abstraction are readily available. This is one of my two
> main bugbears with TTM; that it rejects declarative / applicative /
> referentially transparent models of programming - so although it's
> much better in terms of handling relations, in terms of programming,
> operator definition etc. it's just more of the same old stuff.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:01:27 GMT
Message-ID: <H%oDc.98848$2i5.74802_at_attbi_s52>
"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:bcb8c360.0406180909.7fe81c07_at_posting.google.com...
>
> It is my firm (and hardening) view that the imperative model of
> programming, with its silly word/record at a time view of the world
> and reliance of fiddling with variables, is the source of the majority
> of the programming world's ills. I think it is simply bizarre that in
> the 21st century we are still being encouraged to think in terms of
> updatable cells of storage and simplistic kiddie steps when far higher
> levels of abstraction are readily available. This is one of my two
> main bugbears with TTM; that it rejects declarative / applicative /
> referentially transparent models of programming - so although it's
> much better in terms of handling relations, in terms of programming,
> operator definition etc. it's just more of the same old stuff.
Hear hear! Bravo! Bravo!
Please, tell my what is your *other* main bugbear with TTM.
Marshall Received on Sun Jun 27 2004 - 03:01:27 CEST