On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:


Ive been collecting material regarding (confusions around) OO.  Its far from complete but the references may be useful, eg
 - the Rees list on the different things that OO means to different people
 - the fundamental philosophical differences between commitment to declarativeness and imperativeness -- in philosophical language rationalism and empiricism
 
As I said, its still in the early stage of bits and pieces being collected...
http://blog.languager.org/2012/07/we-dont-need-no-ooooo-orientation-2.html

* If so, where should I start? There are plenty of "functional programming for OO programmers" but I have never seen "OO programming for functional programmers".


In the C++ world Stepanov is almost on par with Stroupstrup.  His STL has transformed C++ practices more than anything else
Good to read his views on OOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov#Criticism_of_OOP


Just realized that the resultant anti-OOP direction of my earlier mail is stronger than is good for a young computer scientist.
In a field like ours its as important to be able to wear a technical/mathematical hat as a social or political one.
And when the latter, its good to be able to participate in a discussion in which inheritance, UML etc etc figures.