Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming languages

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
Mark Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2013
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Jason Wilkins
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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 that models based on Digital Logic
vs. models based on Symbolic Logic are completely different -- they
have different basiis. They are both types of "Maths", and that you
can interchange them as a demonstration doesn't actually help the
practical issue of keeping the two domains separate -- they have
differing logics. It's like the domain of Natural numbers vs. the
Complex, or perhaps the Natural and the Real. Yes you can translate
back and forth, but they are for all practical purposes distinct and
can't be mixed.

> All I need to do is show that my model reduces to some basic physical
> implementation (with perhaps some allowances for infinity) and then I can
> promptly forget about that messy business and proceed to use my clean
> mathematical model.


If that's all you want to do, you can stick with Boolean Logic.

> The reason any model of computation exists is that it is easier to think
> about a problem in some terms than in others. By showing how to transform
> one model to another you make it possible to choose exactly how you wish to
> solve a problem.


Yes, and I'm attempting to provide an argument that the
(historically?) dominant model of symbolic calculus is misinforming
the practical domain of working out differences and arguments within
my own domain of the programming community.

Unfortunately, my inexperience with the literature is actually
betraying the validity of my point.

> The reason we do not work directly in what are called "von Neumann machines"
> is that they are not convenient for all kinds of problems. However we can
> build a compiler to translate anything to anything else so we I don't see
> why anybody would care.


I'm trying to say that *I* care, because I can't seem to find the
common ground that affects 1000's of people in the applied C.S. domain
with the 1000's of people in the theoretical C.S. domain.

MarkJ
Tacoma
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming languages Ian Kelly Python 0 04-16-2013 11:52 PM
Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming languages Mark Janssen Python 0 04-16-2013 11:40 PM
Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming languages Mark Janssen Python 0 04-16-2013 11:16 PM
Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming languages Matthias Felleisen Python 0 04-15-2013 01:50 PM
Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming languages Uday S Reddy Python 0 04-15-2013 09:06 AM



Advertisments