2 ms·
Funnily enough 5 - 1 works almost in every language the same way. Maybe with a different syntax but I cannot think about any FP language where I cannot do it.
by StreamBright 6y ago
Funnily enough 5 - 1 works almost in every language the same way. Maybe with a different syntax but I cannot think about any FP language where I cannot do it.
- smabie 6y agoI mean Lisp. But It's pretty debatable whether Lisps are functional languages. Imo, static typing is a requirement, at least culturally.
- StreamBright 6y agoYeah but (- 5 1). Maybe I just do not care about syntax anymore. Static typing is great but I can live without it. Static typing without the advanced features is not really as helpful. Ada got many things right about types. Like subtypes with constraints for example.
- eru 6y agoAs far as I can tell at the International Conference on Functional Programming the Schemers are treated as full member of the functional programming community, despite lacking static types. Static types are neat, and FP people tend to really like them, but I wouldn't call them a strict requirement even culturally. You can make a statically typed Lisp, of course. Just like you can make a dynamically typed ML-like language. Haskell even sort-of supports that. See https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/defer-errors-to-runtime https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/defer-errors-to-r...