2 ms·

And OOP is closer? Are you saying CPUs are object oriented? Or maybe you just latched onto the comment about FP and decided to argue against it in isolation.

And OOP is closer? Are you saying CPUs are object oriented? Or maybe you just latched onto the comment about FP and decided to argue against it in isolation. I am saying that CPUs are NOT object oriented and that functional programming is closer to how a CPU operates than OOP is, and therefore much easier for a compiler (and a compiler author) to reason about and to optimize.

Jtsummers 7y ago
Question: Which functional programming languages are you specifically referring to with that statement?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> And OOP is closer? No. > Are you saying CPUs are object oriented? No. > Or maybe you just latched onto the comment about FP and decided to argue against it in isolation. Yes, because it was flat-out wrong. FP is not in any way closer to how a CPU operates. (I mean, the rest of your post had problems, too, but that one bit was glaringly wrong.) > I am saying that CPUs are NOT object oriented That I will agree with.