From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

Le 01/03/2024 à 02:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:14:06 +0100, pehache wrote:

"type-bound procedure" really tells what it is, much more than "method".

It’s a mouthful though, isn’t it. Unlike the concise, and common, term used by every other OO language out there.

Fortran is by far not an OO language, it just incorporates *some* OO
features on the top of a procedural language. C++ isn't either, by the
way.

"method" is a terminology that comes from the OOP paradigm, and for
instance in the OOP paradigm there is a conceptual difference between the "message" and the "method". In practice, the term "method" is wrongly used
in many language to indifferently name a "message" or a (true) "method".
By using its own (and self-descripting) terminology, at least the Fortran standard doesn't try mimicking in the wrong way a terminology from a
paradigm that it only very partially implements.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

Le 01/03/2024 à 21:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

On Fri, 01 Mar 24 12:35:56 +0000, pehache wrote:

Le 01/03/2024 à 02:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:14:06 +0100, pehache wrote:

"type-bound procedure" really tells what it is, much more than
"method".

It’s a mouthful though, isn’t it. Unlike the concise, and common, term >>> used by every other OO language out there.

Fortran is by far not an OO language, it just incorporates *some* OO
features on the top of a procedural language. C++ isn't either, by the
way.

“Procedural” and “object-oriented” are orthogonal concepts: nearly all
“object-oriented” languages are also “procedural”.

That's the point : very few languages fully follow the OOP paradigm
without mixing it with the more classical procedural approach.

Languages that introduce new ground-breaking paradigms can justify making
up new terms for them (like “continuation” in Scheme). If you’re just borrowing concepts from other languages, making up your own terms just
makes it look like you are trying to obscure the fact that you’re borrowing.

Or, this is acknowledging that what was implemented was a rough
approximation of the OOP paradigm, instead of pretending otherwise by
wrongly using the terminology.

Anayway, I find such debate completly pointless.


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.fortran

In Message-ID: <z09Z-UsRM8hR1xEFAY4qih3XYDg@jntp> pehache:

[Snip...]

I find such debate completly pointless

+1

IMO, it's sourced largely in 'idle speculation' ...

https://ludwig.guru/s/idle+speculation

Been there, done that, not going back.

YMMV; on the 7th day gawd made slrn scorefiles; yadayada ...
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114