Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mintaka!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!unmvax!uokmax!servalan!epmooch!ben
From: ben@epmooch.UUCP (Rev. Ben A. Mesander)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re:  Functional Programming (Re: Good programmers and assembly language)
Message-ID: <ben.5890@epmooch.UUCP>
Date: 13 Apr 91 08:28:29 GMT
References: <7235@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <1529@tronsbox.xei.com> <7256@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <1535@tronsbox.xei.com>
Lines: 30

>In article <1535@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:
[...]
>	Because I don't give a damn about "Object Oriented Programming".
>I have never actually heard anyone give a clear, concise description of just
>what this is supposed to get me, as a programmer.  That includes my sysadmin,
>who lives for C++.

Note: I'm not taking sides in this debate. I program in HLL's and assembly
      languages, and even APL, which many people consider the worst excuse
      for a language there is.

  One reason I've wanted to try C++ is the ability to define new datatypes
*and* the operators that work on them. For instance, say you're programming
in C and you want to do some complex math. You have to define functions
or macros to do +, -, *, and /. Now as I understand it, in C++, you could
somehow tell +, -, *, and / to work on complex numbers. This is neat, and
reminds me of how APL, or my HP-28 calculator works. I'd like to give it
a try.

>	Last time I checked, Allah had yet to send a new prophet to hand down
>the One True Way to program.

Heh.

>dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com   ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis     GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1

--
| ben@epmooch.UUCP   (Ben Mesander)       | "Cash is more important than |
| ben%servalan.UUCP@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu |  your mother." - Al Shugart, |
| !chinet!uokmax!servalan!epmooch!ben     |  CEO, Seagate Technologies   |