|
1. Set a value.
2. Test a value.
3. Jump to an instruction that sets or tests a value.
I think you may need to reevaluate functional programming.
|
|
|
|
|
Feel free to enlighten me on anything you can do in any platform, in any language, in any paradigm that does something outside of those three things.
m.bergman
For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered. -- Voltaire
In most cases the only difference between disappointment and depression is your level of commitment. -- Marc Maron
I am not a chatbot
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with some other people that OO should be a separate category. Also, event-driven (or message based which is the same thing) is missing from your list.
|
|
|
|
|
I think paradigm, while somewhat overused, is entirely appropriate.
paradigm: A typical example or pattern of something; a model
Along with others, I would say OO is a separate paradigm and often uses the other paradigms.
On the other hand, it's all machine, binary language in the end, so it's all different ways of expressing the same thing.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
How about these:
Pedantic: Standards it may implement, but work it may not.
Aromatic: It may work, but there are these smells coming from the great steaming pile of source.
Pragmatic: Ugly, but it works.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I like where you are coming from Gary.
It is really quite funny, however, I think that I have used all of your methods or paradigms at some point.
The aromatic is probably the worst, as it hangs around, and comes wafting back to haunt you.
Pragmatic is the best as long as you don't have to update it in 5 years time.
I have not and have never been a pedant. ...and never will be.
|
|
|
|
|
... understandable!
I think that 'understandable' languages are definitely in the 'exotic' future scope and that no programming idioms are currently expressive enough to enable ordinary people to comprehend what they are about without putting in a lot of effort.
P.S. A game to play on marketing people and management: insist the word 'paradigm' is pronounce par-ard-did-gem (or par-arg-dig-dem) and that they have been conned by other buzzword merchants into saying pah-ad-ayem. Also, insist that a 'quantum' is the smallest possible unit of energy so their beloved phrase 'quantum shift' means an almost negigible amount of change.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you thinking of the usage definition of paradigm or the actual definition of paradigm?
What's the difference?
Usage definition is an implied definition based on how a word is used.
A good example is the use of the word might:
Might is actually the past tense of may, however, it is mostly used to imply possibility. "It might come to that."
"May I enter?" - "You might." In this proper use permission is presumed to have already been given.
What specifically do you not like about the word paradigm?
Actual definition from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradigm?s=t[^]
par·a·digm
[par-uh-dahym, -dim] Show IPA
noun
1.
Grammar .
a.
a set of forms all of which contain a particular element, especially the set of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme.
b.
a display in fixed arrangement of such a set, as boy, boy's, boys, boys'.
2.
an example serving as a model; pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
I would add OO personally, but with the caveat that I mean the Smalltalk style of message-based OO, not the half-hearted imitation in most supposedly OO languages.
There is a major difference when even constructs such as conditionals and loops are implemented using message-passing. I heartily recommend most dev's to attempt a small project in one of these languages, much as people recommend using functional languages for a project. You don't really grok OO until you've used one of these.
Also, isn't functional programming declarative by nature?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
