3 ms·
Yes, I stated that. Those functions are impure. Purity is a lovely goal, but purity also isn't a defining characteristic of functional programming, it's a moder
by WorldMaker 5y ago
Yes, I stated that. Those functions are impure. Purity is a lovely goal, but purity also isn't a defining characteristic of functional programming, it's a modern pursuit. I've met enough classic LISP practitioners that lived their whole programming lives in the most impure of functional programming, that I would never want to tell them to their face that what they did didn't count as functional programming because of all the leaky impurity in LISP (due to pragmatic considerations of the time).
- flowerlad 5y ago> purity also isn't a defining characteristic of functional programming Disagree. It is in fact the defining characteristic of functional programming.
- e12e 5y agoIt may be defining of pure functional programming. But not for "functional programming". Some arguments for why (and indeed some discussion for why not, too !) : https://wiki.c2.com/?FunctionalProgramming https://wiki.c2.com/?FunctionalProgramming Ed: and I suppose if a function call allocates a stack frame it's no longer a pure function? Or are all functions of type crash-or-value?