Re: Functional Programming in the Larger or FunctionalOriented Software Engineering

>
> On 18 Mar 2007, at 20:46, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> At 05:34 PM 3/18/2007 +0100, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>> - Functional programming seems to require more abstract thinking than
>>> object-oriented programming. Objects seem to be more tangible than
>>> functions. The idea of presumably better being able to model the
>>> "real
>>> world" is related, because I guess a simplified physicality of the
>>> "real
>>> world" is implicitly assumed here. (I don't understand what
>>> "modeling the
>>> real world" is actually supposed to mean. I don't think this idea
>>> makes
>>> any sense. But that's a different topic... ;)
>>
>> Modeling the real world is supposed to mean something like what pretty
>> much all of science does, or what pure human perception does for that
>> matter.
>
> You are making a lot of implicit assumptions here, and I have the
> impression that a lot of OOP fans make such assumptions without being
> aware of them, and of course without being aware what the potentially
> far-reaching consequences of such assumptions are.
>
> The most important implicit assumption here, for example, is that
> there exists a reality independent of our perception that can be
> observed in the first place. This may seem obviously true, but it is
> very hard to argue that this is actually the case. As an extreme
> counter position, see for example constructivism - http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology -, social
> construction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction -, or
> social constructionism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Social_constructionism -. See also the excellent book "The social
> construction of what?" by Ian Hacking - http://www.amazon.com/Social-
> Construction-What-Ian-Hacking/dp/0674004124
>
> I am convinced that programming is much closer to a constructivist
> activity than to an attempt to describe reality. See also http://
> www.dreamsongs.com/ArtOfLisp.html - in my opinion Richard Gabriel's
> best essay so far...

I'm familiar with that essay, and in fact I subscribe (for the most part)
to constructivism. Hence my "what pure human perception does for that
matter" which I added precisely as a hint that physicalism has nothing to
do with object-orientation. Also, I don't think people assume either
position, explicitly or implicitly. For instance, many OO models have
nothing to do with physical objects, but rather with pure social
constructions (e.g. financial systems and the like).

Best,
Borislav