On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Neal Becker <ndbeck...@gmail.com> wrote: > rusi wrote: > > On Oct 29, 8:20 pm, andrea crotti <andrea.crott...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snipped> > >> Any comments about this? What do you prefer and why? > > > Im not sure how what the 'prefer' is about -- your specific num > > wrapper or is it about the general question of choosing mutable or > > immutable types? > > > If the latter I would suggest you read > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanov#Criticism_of_OOP > > > [And remember that Stepanov is the author of C++ STL, he is arguably > > as important in the C++ world as Stroustrup] > > The usual calls for immutability are not related to OO. They have to do with > optimization, and specifically with parallel processing.
>From the time of Backus' Turing award http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/backus_turingaward_lecture.pdf it is standard fare that assignment = imperative programming (which he collectively and polemically called the von Neumann bottleneck) That what he decried as 'conventional programming languages' today applies to OO languages; see http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/backus-lecture.html A more modern viewpoint: -------------- Object-oriented programming is eliminated entirely from the introductory curriculum, because it is both anti-modular and anti- parallel by its very nature, and hence unsuitable for a modern CS curriculum. A proposed new course on object-oriented design methodology will be offered at the sophomore level for those students who wish to study this topic. ---------------- from http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/teaching-fp-to-freshmen/ Call it polemical if you like; noting that that's Carnegie Mellon. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
