Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines

I won't say that your node is off-topic, since you promised to show us something in Perl. ;)
In the meantime, I would like to share some comments about your first chapter, and you are free to plagiarize me :-).
I will start by saying that you are expressing your ideas very clearly. So clearly, though, that there are a couple of points that appear to be too strong in comparison to my previous education.
Personally, I love this subject, and I have read a lot about programming and computer theory. I know how Turing machines are related to computer programming, but this is the first time that I see them identified with programming theory.
IMHO, programming theory is more than just studying Turing machines. It is true that you can program a Turing machine to do any task but I don't see why we should pass throug them to explain everything else. Don't get me wrong. I just think that the relationship you are stating is too strict and committing.
It is your opinion that programnming theory is identified with the study of Turing machines. Another opinion could be that you can explain programming theory without ever mentioning Turnig machines. Yours could be a well supported opinion (if you can substantiate it with good references) but it is not the only view in programming theory.
Also stating that objects are Turing machines looks to me like you are stretching the issue a tad too much. I can see your point and I understand it, but it seems to be too extremistic, and as an average reader, I am not ready to accept it unless you can back it up with some hard evidence.
The same remarks I would make for patterns. You say "so to understand patterns, you need to understand Object-Oriented Programming"
I should say that OOP is one view of the issue, but not the only one. Patterns can be explained in terms of structured programming, and actually I learned about patterns long before the term OOP hit the bookstores. I don't object to the technology (I was one of the first teachers of OOP in Italy in the early nineties) but just to this strong relationship. OOP can explain patterns, maybe better than structured programming, but it is not the only game in town.
Apart from that, You are doing fine, your prose makes a pleasant reading and I am curious to see the Perlish part of it.

 _  _ _  _  
(_|| | |(_|><
 _|
[download]

Comment on Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines by mstone (Deacon) on Jan 03, 2002 at 21:25 UTC
Thank you.. that's exactly the kind of feedback I'd hoped for. > I will start by saying that you are expressing your ideas very clearly. > So clearly, though, that there are a couple of points that appear to be > too strong in comparison to my previous education. Point taken.. thank you. You're right that there are many ways to view the subject, and I don't want to sound like an advocate of The One True Way. I oversimplified through a combination of keeping things terse and being alone with my notes for too long. > ... and I am curious to see the Perlish part of it. Hmm.. another good point. The first couple chapters are heavy on theory, and the rest refer back to them while explaining the code for specific patterns. You're right that people will want to see some code, though. I'll have to crank out some sample code so people can see the ideas in action, rather than just relying on diagrams.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines
by mstone (Deacon) on Jan 03, 2002 at 21:25 UTC

Thank you.. that's exactly the kind of feedback I'd hoped for.

> I will start by saying that you are expressing your ideas very clearly.
> So clearly, though, that there are a couple of points that appear to be
> too strong in comparison to my previous education.

Point taken.. thank you. You're right that there are many ways to view the subject, and I don't want to sound like an advocate of The One True Way. I oversimplified through a combination of keeping things terse and being alone with my notes for too long.

> ... and I am curious to see the Perlish part of it.

Hmm.. another good point. The first couple chapters are heavy on theory, and the rest refer back to them while explaining the code for specific patterns. You're right that people will want to see some code, though. I'll have to crank out some sample code so people can see the ideas in action, rather than just relying on diagrams.

[reply]