Lambda the Ultimate

inactiveTopic A "Popular Science" treatment of FP/OOP?
started 2/16/2001; 12:05:11 AM - last post 2/18/2001; 9:25:52 AM
andrew cooke - A "Popular Science" treatment of FP/OOP?  blueArrow
2/16/2001; 12:05:11 AM (reads: 2047, responses: 5)
A "Popular Science" treatment of FP/OOP?
[pdf] [postscript]

As this is (1) much more introductory than the usual links here and (2) my own work, you might want to read the points in the discussion page before downloading (click on Discuss below).
Posted to Misc-Books by andrew cooke on 2/16/01; 12:06:06 AM

andrew cooke - Re: A  blueArrow
2/16/2001; 12:06:50 AM (reads: 1298, responses: 0)
As an astronomer I was surprised at the number of books "explaining" astronomy to the "educated layman". As a software engineer, I'm surprised at the lack of any similar books or articles. This essay was my attempt to write something that a reader of the London Review of Books might read (the liberal intelligensia, in a nutshell).

I'm posting it here because (1) I want to see what others think about this: should such things exist or is the subject uninteresting to "outsiders"? And (2) I'd like feedback on the compromises made in writing such an article. Popular science astronomy books are rather free in the language and metaphors that they use - my impression of people involved with computers is that they are much less tolerant of "imprecision". So I expect some criticism, but at the same time I suspect LRB declined to publish at least partly because my style was still too dry and precise.

Finally, what else is there similar to this on the 'net, and is Lambda a suitable place for posting such links?

Ehud Lamm - Re: A  blueArrow
2/16/2001; 1:03:57 AM (reads: 1289, responses: 0)
is Lambda a suitable place for posting such links?

Sure. Especially if they contain dicussions on programmability and languages.

I am very much in favour of the approach and, skimming, I like the writing style.

I, for one, am willing to tolerate far fetched metahpors etc. What I'd try not to do is be imprecise enough to cause confusion, or simply say wrong things. I think this applies to any kind of popularization. (I am a great fan of popular science, and popularization in general. I think it is part of the duty we owe mankind).

I'll try to give more techincal comments later on.


andrew cooke - Re: A  blueArrow
2/16/2001; 10:12:02 AM (reads: 1270, responses: 0)

Ehud Lamm - Re: A  blueArrow
2/18/2001; 3:29:15 AM (reads: 1238, responses: 0)
One thing that bothered me is that you say that the Y2K thing (it is not a bug) would not be so problematic if OO was used.

I think this is a bit misleading, since the problem is much larger than that (it related to io, forms, databases etc. etc.)

I see your point, but I felt a bit uneasy when reading this claim.

andrew cooke - Re: A  blueArrow
2/18/2001; 9:25:52 AM (reads: 1240, responses: 0)
I'll have a read and see how I can change it. I don't want to remove it completely because it's something people will have heard of, but I'll tone down the effects of OO. Or try and think of a better example. Thanks.