3 ms·
> I'd love to hear the argument that says that it is... http://science.raphael.poss.name/rust-for-functional-programmers.html http://science.raphael.poss.name/
by jnbiche 11y ago
> I'd love to hear the argument that says that it is...
http://science.raphael.poss.name/rust-for-functional-programmers.html http://science.raphael.poss.name/rust-for-functional-program...
I personally think Rust isn't functional, but rather multi-paradigm with a strong functional influence. But if you were to add TCO and a few other features, I think Rust would be a full-blown functional language, so it may get there yet.
In any case, it's useless arguing over (should have known better than say anything), so this will be my last word on the issue.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoI wasn't actually looking to argue; I was looking to understand. And I guess it's going to come down to "whose definition of FP are we using?" If FP means "I can write in a functional style", there are many more functional languages than if FP means "I can only write in a functional style". That debate - about whose definition of FP is correct - is one that I can't bother to care very much about.