2 ms·
> Nope. A functional language is one that makes it easy to write functional programs, by satisfying the conditions I gave above. Except you’ve still given no s
by minitech 10y ago
> Nope. A functional language is one that makes it easy to write functional programs, by satisfying the conditions I gave above.
Except you’ve still given no source for the conditions, condition -1 (“a functional language is a procedural language”) is wrong, and a language satisfying the conditions in no way makes it easier to write a functional program just by virtue of satisfying the conditions (because they can be satisfied entirely by removing features you don’t have to use). Maybe you meant “harder to write non-functional programs”.
> Second.
The last item in a list of three items is not the second item.
- catnaroek 10y ago> condition -1 (“a functional language is a procedural language”) is wrong It's correct. In a procedural language, computations are structured as procedures that may call each other. In a functional language, that condition (plus three additional ones) hold. > and a language satisfying the conditions in no way makes it easier to write a functional program just by virtue of satisfying the conditions Removing pointer arithmetic makes it easier to write programs that don't contain memory errors. Removing spurious distinctions between memory blobs that hold the same value makes it easier to program with mathematical functions. > (because they can be satisfied entirely by removing features you don’t have to use) Removing features creates a different language. Often a nicer one! > Maybe you meant “harder to write non-functional programs”. Nope. That would exclude any general-purpose programming language. Lest you think otherwise: it's very easy to write imperative programs in Haskell and ML. > The last item in a list of three items is not the second item. Zeroth, first, second.