Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

2013-04-19 Thread Mark Janssen
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Jason Wilkins wrote: > I don't quite think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that > mathematical models are not a good foundation for computer science because > computers are really made out of electronic gates? No, I'm really trying to point out

Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

2013-04-19 Thread Mark Janssen
> I think there is some misunderstanding here. Being "mathematical" in > academic work is a way of making our ideas rigorous and precise, instead of > trying to peddle wooly nonsense. I'm sorry. I am responsible for the misunderstanding. I used the word "math" when I really mean symbolic logic

Re: The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

2013-05-01 Thread Mark Janssen
>> Here's a simple rule to resolve the ambiguity. Whoever publishes >> first, gets to claim origin of a word and its usage, kind of like a >> BDFL. The rest can adapt around that, make up their own word, or be >> corrected as the community requires. > > You seem to want to squeeze all of compute

<    1   2   3