Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "Programming languages are living phenomena: They're born, the lucky ones that don't die in infancy live sometimes long, fruitful lives, and then inevitably enter a period of decline. Unlike real life, the decline can last many, many years as the presence of large legacy codebases means practiced hands must tend the code for decades. The more popular the language once was, the longer this period of decline will be."
Permalink for comment 548967
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed
by satsujinka on Wed 16th Jan 2013 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed"
satsujinka
Member since:
2010-03-11

Exactly because it reduces flexibility. That's why I compared it to weak/strong typing.

Both strong typing and "pure functional" provide additional guarantees about the content of some object (values/variables and functions respectively.) In the case of pure functions, the guarantee is that they will always be referentially transparent and have no side effects. It's simply impossible to construct something which isn't. This is a valuable guarantee, at least for a compiler, due to the optimizations such a function allows.

Reply Parent Score: 2