4 ms·

> Real hardware is imperative. Wrong. > So practical languages took the good idea out of OOP for convenient syntax sugars. Also wrong, unless by "syntactic s

• learc83 8y ago
  >Wrong. At an abstraction level below digital circuits, you are correct. But thankfully the layers on top of that do almost always do a very good job of hiding it. >Doubt it. Functional programming is already following the same path. Sure there will non-hybrid languages around if you want to use them, but take a look at the functional constructs that have made their way into almost every procedural language in use today. Most people have never touched Haskell, but almost everyone has seen a map function. >Purity does not constrain efficiency at all. Maybe not inherently, but there's a reason we have to break out and use mutable data structures when we really need performance. For the systems we are working on today purity does impact performance/efficiency.