Hacker News Reader

Comment by calvins | Hacker News Reader

"Valid concepts are arrived at by induction."

If the point is to argue that OOP is not a valid concept, the author should show first that 'programming' is a valid concept (using the same definitions) and that there are some related concepts (e.g., 'functional programming') that are valid, because if the same argument can be applied to most or all other '* programming' concepts too (not to mention concepts like 'validity' and 'concept'), then the point is not specific to OOP at all.

Incidentally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory seems a much better starting point for thinking about concepts in general, and '* programming' in particular.

View on HN

The author's case is based upon Harriman's account of induction in the natural sciences. I don't think that's appropriate here. Computer Science -- or at least PL/Software Engineering -- is not a physical science! In many cases it's not or historically wasn't even a mathematical science.

Furthermore, all programming paradigms suffer the same fate in popular/industry press (even if not within academic communities). For instance, productivity claims justified by the macros and dynamic typing of Schemes and Lisps are often implicitly cross-applied to MLs under the broad header of "FP". And vice-versa for safety claims about MLs germane to types.

Sure, some people are careful about this sort of thing. But some aren't, which can make the concept of FP a "grab-bag" in certain settings. That doesn't (or shouldn't) make FP a "non-concept".

(It appears you beat me to this punch, so I'm moving my comment here instead of fragmenting this point into 2 top-level comments.)

I was happy to see a blog about the intersection of functional programming and philosophy, but I'd be happier if it weren't Objectivist. On the other hand, it's nice to see that my Rand radar is working. At the first mention of "actual concepts," I was a little intrigued. Then I noticed arrogant statements like "abstraction that is made in error," and the typical retreat to Aristetolian epistemology in order to make some basically political point. Then I went back and noticed that the link to "epistemology" actually links to "Objectivist epistemology" and that the citation for the criteria of concepthood is from The Objective Standard ("Reason, Egoism, and Capitalism").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com