«

In article <>, Programmer Dude <> writes:
> wrote:
>
> >> ITYM "imperative programming." I associate the term "structured
> >> programming" with post-Fortran-and-BASIC languages, including C
> >> *and* ML, not necessarily only imperative-paradigm ones.
>
> (Sans the ML (I believe) the rest are oft called the "Algol Family".)

Yes, ML is not a member of the Algol family. It's a functional
language, so it's conceptually closer to LISP, but its syntax is
completely different.

> I contrast imperative with object-oriented and functional. (I make
> no claims for authority here.)
>
> The Imperatives are the Algol family, mainly characterized as
> "sub-routine" based and having "stupid" data types (stupid meaning
> no code is directly associated with a type as in OOP). I think
> of these as "verb" oriented.
>
> The Object-Oriented are those that centralize data types and bind
> code to them. I think of these as "noun" oriented.
>
> The Functionals are (to my mind) characterized by imutable "variables"
> and the use of functions over language flow control statements. I
> think of these as "really weird". (-:

You could think of them as preposition-oriented: X of Y of Z. What
functional languages aren't, generally speaking, is adverb-oriented -
they generally don't want you to try to tell them when or how to do
something.

But there are OO functional languages, so this classification doesn't
really work. There are imperative and functional languages, which may
also be object-oriented or not (call that "procedural" if you like).

--
Michael Wojcik

Even though there may be some misguided critics of what we're trying
to do, I think we're on the wrong path. -- Reagan