To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If you'd like to be helpful, please point me to someone who prefers weak typing to strong typing. Then put that in context of everyone who prefers the reverse.
Please note that this is not a comment on the preference for dynamic or not. A dynamic language can still be weakly or strongly typed underneath (Python for instance is a strongly typed dynamic language.)
"We" in this case is in reference to the general populace of programmers.
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?
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.





Member since:
2010-03-11
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.