Hello Bulat, On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:52:22 +0400, you wrote:
you can replace OOP with FP in the manual text i cited and read it as modern text :)
Mostly, perhaps. But how about the following portions (see page 16) [1]? ;)
Object-oriented languages were once called "actor languages" with this metaphor in mind.
One often amusing outgrowth of this is that OOP fanatics anthropomorphize their objects. Data structures are no longer passive buckets for you to toss values in. In the new view of things, an object is looked upon as an actor on a stage, with a set of lines (methods) memorized. When you (the director) give the word, the actor recites from the script.
Let's try....
Functional languages were once called "actor languages" with this metaphor in mind.
Hmm ... this doesn't quite seem to fit....
One often amusing outgrowth of this is that FP fanatics anthropomorphize their functions. Data structures are no longer passive buckets for you to toss values in. In the new view of things, a function is looked upon as an actor on a stage, with a set of lines (<replace "methods" with something appropriate here>) memorized. When you (the director) give the word, the actor recites from the script.
Forgive me, but I can't quite think of anything corresponding to "methods" here. Can you get these portions to fit without mixing metaphors? ;-) -- Benjamin L. Russell [1] Borland International, Inc. _Turbo Pascal 5.5 Object-Oriented Programming Guide._ Scotts Valley, CA: Borland International, Inc., 1989. <http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/images/20803/TP_55_OOP_Guide.pdf>. -- Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/ Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725 "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^