3 ms·
>Message passing does require a sender, a receiver, and a message. You can have those in purely functional programming. No identity needed. Would you mind show
by thesz 15y ago
>Message passing does require a sender, a receiver, and a message. You can have those in purely functional programming. No identity needed.
Would you mind show me some code in pure functional language?
I mean, in Haskell or Clean. Those are pure enough.
- loup-vaillant 15y agohttp://www.loup-vaillant.fr/articles/classes-as-syntactic-sugar http://www.loup-vaillant.fr/articles/classes-as-syntactic-su... My Ocaml code is not pure, but we can easy remove any occurrence of `ref`, and restricting oneself to pure methods, which produce a new fresh object instead of modifying `this` in place.
- thesz 15y agoSorry, I am not very fluent in OCaml. Also, I didn't find word "message" in the link above. I am experiencing limitations of pure objects and message passing almost right now. In my spare time I am currently developing dynamic data flow CPU which is based on immutable "objects" and message sending. It is quite unusual style of programming, very unlike anything else, including Smalltalk, Erlang and everything.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoIt's like Haskell, with a slightly heavier syntax. And it's eager. And you can unsafePerformIO all over the place (but avoid doing so even in Ocaml). (* Ocaml *) --Haskell let foo = 42 foo = 42 -- top level declaration type bar = data bar = -- type declaration Also, records in Ocaml are a separate kind of type, more like C structs: type bar = { x:int; (* defination *) y:float; } bar.x (* "member" acces *) "Message passing" and "Method calling" are strictly equivalent, at least when everything is synchronous.