Welcome to the Lounge
For lazing about and discussing anything in a software developer's life that takes your fancy.
The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads.
Technical discussions are welcome, but if you need specific help please
use the programming forums.
|
|
 |
|
According to wikipedia OO should be considered as it's own paradigm, as should machine code and assembly language. It would depend on whether you want to class all of those as imperative or not. Technically they are, but is that really a useful definition?
My thinking is that it depends what level of abstraction you want to consider: if you want to talk in the abstract it's hard to think of other major classes of language, but equally when describing the properties of a language by paradigm it's better to have more words than fewer, even if OO and procedural boil down to being imperative - I could say "C# is an imperative language, and so is machine code" but it's so abstract as to not give any useful information, whereas if I said "C# is an OO language, and machine code is an imperative language" then this at least starts to hint at the fundamental differences in how you would use both.
And I don't particularly have a problem with the word paradigm in this context as to me it would imply a different way of thinking about how to structure the program, which taking OO vs structured programming as an example makes sense as, even though they are both still imperative, you think about their structure differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
