4 ms·

If you do not point out any contradictions even after being asked twice then I have to conclude that you simply cannot. You could have also referred specificall

If you do not point out any contradictions even after being asked twice then I have to conclude that you simply cannot. You could have also referred specifically or quoted the important lines from the other threads, but you did neither. That's not helpful in a discussion. > Choosing the denotation as "value and side-effects" doesn't add much over saying simply that the language is pure You are aware that, regarding the discussion between us two, it was you and not me who even used the term "side-effect" first, right?

kaba0 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27415670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27415670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414992 > FP means that every expression (= part that can be evaluated) is referential transparent > Referential transparency implies immutability Both of these statements are false. As I said, Java is referentially transparent. addOne(2)’s value is the same as the value of the last line in `var a = 2; addOne(a)`. And Java is most definitely not a pure FP language, and its referential transparency doesn’t imply immutability. You can argue that inserting `int two() { sideEffect(); return 2; }` ‘s invocation in place of 2 will change the semantics of the program but that is precisely the meaning of a side-effecting function — so using referential transparency is redundant in that meaning.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Thank you for explicitly pointing it out. I disagree with you - I think you are using a different definition and there seems indeed to be discussion about what the definition really is. Wikipedia for examples uses the definition that I use, but in the Talk-section someone made a similar complaint to yours (or was that you :)). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency] I stick to my definition though, because... I find it more useful and I think it is the more common one.

kaba0 5y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27415670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27415670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414992 > FP means that every expression (= part that can be evaluated) is referential transparent > Referential transparency implies immutability Both of these statements are false. As I said, Java is referentially transparent. addOne(2)’s value is the same as the value of the last line in `var a = 2; addOne(a)`. And Java is most definitely not a pure FP language, and its referential transparency doesn’t imply immutability. You can argue that inserting `int two() { sideEffect(); return 2; }` ‘s invocation in place of 2 will change the semantics of the program but that is precisely the meaning of a side-effecting function — so using referential transparency is redundant in that meaning.

valenterry 5y ago
Thank you for explicitly pointing it out. I disagree with you - I think you are using a different definition and there seems indeed to be discussion about what the definition really is. Wikipedia for examples uses the definition that I use, but in the Talk-section someone made a similar complaint to yours (or was that you :)). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency] I stick to my definition though, because... I find it more useful and I think it is the more common one.