Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> If you consider "modular" to be a programming paradigm then... yes, I 
> >> guess.
> > 
> >   Yes, modular programming is usually considered a programming paradigm
> > of its own (a type of precursor of object-oriented programming).

> I thought that was structured programming?

  Structured programming is more related to principles related to the
control flow of the program, ie. related to control structures (such as
conditionals, switch-blocks and different types of loops). It's a kind
of subset of the more general procedural programming paradigm.

  I don't think the concept of "module" is part of the structured
programming paradigm. A modular programming language may follow the
principles of structured programming (and make its own additions), but
that doesn't mean it's the same in the other way. And I don't think
there's any requirement for a modular language to use structured programming
principles (in the same way as an OOP language doesn't necessarily have
to follow procedural programming principles).

> (Actually, I've heard legend of another functional language where 
> apparently modules *do* have inheritance... There are often debates 
> about whether Haskell should do this - with most people agreeing the 
> vast increase in complexity isn't worth it.)

  I have never understood why adding *optional* features, which you are
in no way forced to use, to something would make it "too complex".

> >> (Does Pascal count as "module" too?)
> > 
> >   Pascal is a programming language, not a module. :P

> Gah! The difference a few characters makes... :-S

> [Obviously I meant "does Pascal count as modular?"]

  I don't know enough about Pascal to answer that question. (Is there
a "standard" Pascal language anyways? I have the impression that each
compiler company has created their own variant of Pascal, and that there's
no official standard. I may perfectly be wrong, of course.)

> >> Did I mention that Haskell also has "classes"? (Though they don't work 
> >> quite the same as in OOP.)
> > 
> >   If you can inherit and have dynamic binding (or a messaging system,
> > ie. delegation) then it would more or less make it an OOP language,
> > else it's just a modular programming language.

> Dynamic binding? Sure. That's the entire purpose.

> Inheritance? Mmm, not really, no.

  That's a bit contradictory given that dynamic binding (or its
alternative, delegation) is inherently related to inheritance.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message