[Tutor] Terminology WAS Whats so good about OOP ?

Max Noel maxnoel_fr at yahoo.fr
Sun Mar 13 21:19:55 CET 2005

On Mar 13, 2005, at 18:38, Brian van den Broek wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation, Sean.
> The reference to grammatical theory here does seem to make sense. But, 
> relying on correspondence between the technical terms in 
> programming/comp. sci. and other fields with similar terminology can 
> get in the way, too.
> I've a background in formal logic; it took me some effort to stop 
> being upset that in Pythonic programming parlance get_a_random_element 
> is a "function":
> <SNIP>
> Where I come from, the output of a function is determined by the input 
> to the function.

	Well, actually, your being upset at that is the exact point of 
functional programming languages: in functional programming, the output 
of a function is determined by its input, and *only* its input. 
Therefore, there are no side-effects (variables being one) calling a 
function twice with the same arguments will *always* yield the same 
	The only time this paradigm is broken is (of course) when dealing with 

-- Max
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting 
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a 
perfect, immortal machine?"

More information about the Tutor mailing list