-
-
Replying to @dibblego
Where can I read some arguments on why FP and OOP are not orthogonal? I believe they are.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Krever01
One exists and the other does not. http://blog.higher-order.com/blog/2008/12/04/no-such-thing/ …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Panicz Maciej Godek Retweeted Hillel is on Tweet Break
Let me recall the recent
@Hillelogram rant about existence: https://twitter.com/Hillelogram/status/982472799427203072 … Functional Programming doesn't exist either. In the end, all we have (what exists) is people using words. If they manage to communicate their ideas, they have used them successfully.Panicz Maciej Godek added,
Hillel is on Tweet Break @hillelogramOkay, so it's 2300 right now, there's another shitstorm about monads raging, and I'm drinking applesauce straight from the bottle. Let's do this shit. "Are monads pipes?" Your answer is wrong. The question is nonsense. Nonsense and stupid. It's Wittgenstein time motherfuckers!Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PaniczGodek @dibblego and
Also, I don't think that the "criteria for a concept or a theory to be valid" provided by
@runarorama don't seem to be valid themselves, or reject many useful concepts (including Functional Programming)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PaniczGodek @Krever01 and
Functional Programming has a meaning. Using this meaning, we can investigate consequences. We can build more meanings. OOP does not have a meaning. No useful inferences have been made from the OOP thesis. Here is the most honest admission of this fact:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZlxBRnxzDc#t=4117 …
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
I'd even go further: Functional Programming is all about meaning. But natural language isn't. The "game of meaning" is just one of the many language games we can play. Saying that "functional programming exists" and "object-oriented programming doesn't exist" is another game.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PaniczGodek @dibblego and
(And the purpose of this game is probably to make some OOP folks upset) But saying, about a (purported) abstract concept, that "it exists" or "it doesn't exist", is very confusing to the people who play the "meaning" game. More precise is to say about concept being well-defined
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PaniczGodek @Krever01 and
"probably to make folks upset" -- baseless charges of sinister motivations are really gross, and irrelevant. OOP is the (equally) least possible defined anti-concept. I don't give a toss who is upset over this matter of fact.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
"baseless charges of sinister motivations" I didn't mean it to sound like this. Sorry about that. What I meant to say is that, when people use some phrase to communicate successfully, and someone comes and says that this phrase doesn't make any sense, this isn't very helpful.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Generally, people who have really long meetings about fairies, get upset when it is pointed out that fairies do not exist. No amount of authenticity in that upsetness brings the fairies out though.
-
-
Replying to @dibblego @PaniczGodek
What if I define OOP == inheritance? Now it exists or still does not?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.