Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 548909
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by RareBreed
by satsujinka on Tue 15th Jan 2013 22:09
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by RareBreed"
"The functional programming is going to be just another tool of multi-paradigm programming languages, I think.
Agreed. Over the years, I've found very little value in OO languages - but I find a *lot* of value in having objects in more traditional procedural or functional languages. "
Fixed that for ya
Serious now.
It's true, pure functional is only a marginal improvement over impure functional. It's sort of like the distinction between weak and strong typing. But just as we prefer strong typing for the guarantees it gives us we should prefer pure functional to impure.
RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed
by ndrw on Tue 15th Jan 2013 22:20
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by RareBreed"
RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed
by Delgarde on Tue 15th Jan 2013 22:39
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by RareBreed"
It's true, pure functional is only a marginal improvement over impure functional. It's sort of like the distinction between weak and strong typing. But just as we prefer strong typing for the guarantees it gives us we should prefer pure functional to impure.
Disagree, pure functional is a serious step backward compared to a language that allow you to mix functional with procedural or OO techniques. Seriously, why should I prefer pure-functional when all that gives me is reduced flexibility?





Member since:
2008-08-19
Agreed. Over the years, I've found very little value in purely-functional languages - but I find a *lot* of value in having functional elements within more traditional procedural or OO languages.