|
 |
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> But that's within a function composition environment.
>
> Ah, so we avoid being related to the dreaded Object-Oriented Programming
> (vade retro) by using different terminology for the same things. Then we
> can write long lists of reasons why *our* terms do not *really* mean the
> same things as the equivalent OOP terms.
Not that. I have no problem calling ADTs objects or parametrized
regions of code subroutines, functions, procedures, methods or whatever,
as long as it's not within a OO framework. I like functional
programming fluidity and lack of bureaucracy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
