Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 548927
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[5]: Comment by RareBreed
by ndrw on Tue 15th Jan 2013 23:23
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed"
RE[6]: Comment by RareBreed
by satsujinka on Wed 16th Jan 2013 06:11
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed"
RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed
by satsujinka on Wed 16th Jan 2013 06:06
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed"
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:
2008-08-19
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?